scholarly journals Policy driven changes in animal research practices: mapping researchers’ attitudes towards animal-free innovations using the Netherlands as an example

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Bressers ◽  
H. van den Elzen ◽  
C. Gräwe ◽  
D. van den Oetelaar ◽  
P.H.A. Postma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Brain Drain ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Animal Science ◽  
Multiple Factors ◽  
Research Regulations ◽  
Near Future ◽  
Key Questions

AbstractReducing the number of animals used in experiments has become a priority for the governments of many countries. For these reductions to occur, animal-free alternatives must be made more available and, crucially, must be embraced by researchers. We conducted an international online survey for academics in the field of animal science (N=367) to explore researchers’ attitudes towards the implementation of animal-free innovations.Through this survey we address three key questions. The first question is whether scientists who use animals in their research consider governmental goals for animal-free innovations achievable and whether they would support such goals. Secondly, responders were asked to rank the importance of ten roadblocks that could hamper the implementation of animal-free innovations. Finally, responders were asked whether they would migrate (either themselves or their research) if increased animal research regulations in their country of residence restricted their research. While nearly half (40%) of the responders support governmental goals, the majority (71%) of researchers did not consider such goals achievable in their field within the near future. In terms of roadblocks for implementation of animal-free methods, ∼80% of the responders considered ‘reliability’ as important, making it the most highly ranked roadblock. However, all other roadblocks were reported by the majority of responders as somewhat important, suggesting that they must also be considered when addressing animal-free innovations. Importantly, a majority reported that they would consider migration to another country in response to restrictive animal research policy. Thus, governments must consider the risk of researchers migrating to other institutes, states or countries, leading to a ‘brain-drain’ if policies are too strict or suitable animal-free alternatives are not available. Our findings suggest that development and implementation of animal-free innovations are hampered by multiple factors. We outline three pillars concerning education, governmental influence and data sharing, the implementation of which may help to overcome these roadblocks to animal-free innovations.

scholarly journals THU0647-HPR SHARED DECISION MAKING AMONGST RHEUMATOLOGISTS IN TRAINING IN THE NETHERLANDS: WHERE DO WE STAND?

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 568.2-568
Author(s):  
L. Kranenburg ◽  
M. Dankbaar ◽  
N. Basoski ◽  
W. Van den Broek ◽  
J. Hazes
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Clear Understanding ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Professional Activities ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
The Subject

Background:The training curriculum for rheumatologists in training in the Netherlands describes competences and entrusted professional activities (EPA) to monitor the progress in learning. However, this training program does not discuss training of Shared Decision Making. As the basis for shared care and patient participation is made during these years, the question arises how rheumatologist in training think about Shared Decision Making and how they use this in daily practice.Objectives:Inventory of vision, experience and self-evaluation of skills related to Shared Decision Making amongst rheumatologists in training in the Netherlands in order to identify barriers in the implementation of Shared Decision Making in daily practice.Methods:Qualitative data was collected from on online survey amongst rheumatologists in training who were registered in January 2018 by the Dutch Society of Rheumatology.Results:Forty-two rheumatologists in training from various years of training responded (60%). Respondents think that Shared Decision Making is important. A third applies Shared Decision Making on a regular basis in daily practice. Self rating of skills for Shared Decision Making varies from sufficient to good. However, respondents are uncertain about their performance due to a lack of feedback and unclearness of the concept. They indicate that Shared Decision Making is not possible for all patients and find it difficult to assess whether the patient has a clear understanding of the options. Patient’s preferences are discussed only by 33% of the doctors on a regular basis when starting new treatment.Conclusion:Rheumatologists in training agree on the importance of Shared Decision Making, but are uncertain about their performance. Unclearness of the concept is described as a known barrier in literature1,2and is frequently mentioned by respondents. Rheumatologist in training indicate that not all patients are fit for Shared Decision Making. Regarding the limited training on the subject this could also be a misjudgment of patients preferences and lack of experience how to deal with different patient types. There is a clear plea for more training and feedback on the subject. Training should be integrated in the curriculum focusing on how to assess patients preferences and how to apply Shared Decision Making also for patients who indicate to leave decisions up to their doctor.References:[1]van Veenendaal, H.et al.Accelerating implementation of shared decision-making in the Netherlands: An exploratory investigation.Patient Educ Couns101, 2097-2104 (2018).[2]Legare, F., Ratte, S., Gravel, K. & Graham, I. D. Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions.Patient Educ Couns73, 526-535 (2008).Disclosure of Interests:Laura Kranenburg Grant/research support from: Pfizer and UCB for the development of the Reuma App, a tool to support selfmanagement for patients. This is not used for the research related to the submitted abstract., Mary Dankbaar: None declared, Natalja Basoski: None declared, Walter Van den Broek: None declared, Johanna Hazes: None declared

scholarly journals Psychosocial Effects and Use of Communication Technologies during Home Confinement in the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy and The Netherlands

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 2619
Author(s):  
Sofia Bastoni ◽  
Christian Wrede ◽  
Achraf Ammar ◽  
Annemarie Braakman-Jansen ◽  
Robbert Sanderman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Communication Technology ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Digital Communication ◽  
Psychosocial Support ◽  
Psychosocial Impact ◽  
Mental Wellbeing ◽  
Communication Tool ◽  
Psychosocial Effects ◽  
Cross Sectional

(1) Background: The COVID-19 pandemic forced people from all around the globe to strongly modify their daily routines, putting a significant strain on the social aspects of daily lives. While the first wave of the pandemic was a very challenging time in all countries, it is still uncertain whether various lockdown intensities and infection rates differed regarding their psychosocial impact. This work therefore aimed to investigate (i) the psychosocial effects of home confinement in two European countries that underwent different lockdown intensities: Italy and the Netherlands and (ii) the role of communication technology in relation to feelings of loneliness. (2) Methods: A cross-sectional online survey inquiring about different psychosocial variables and the use of and satisfaction towards communication technology was circulated among the general public during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. In total, 629 participants (66% female, 68% from the Netherlands) answered each question twice, referring to “before” and “during” the pandemic. (3) Results: We found significant negative effects of COVID-19 home confinement on depressive feelings (p < 0.001, %∆ = +54%), loneliness (p < 0.001, %∆ = +37.3%), life satisfaction (p < 0.001, %∆ = −19.8%) and mental wellbeing (p < 0.001, %∆ = −10.6%) which were accompanied with a significantly increased need for psychosocial support (p < 0.001, %∆ = +17.3%). However, the magnitude of psychosocial impact did not significantly differ between residents undergoing a more intense (Italy) versus a less intense (Netherlands) lockdown, although the decrease in social participation was found to be significantly different for both countries (z = −7.714, p < 0.001). Furthermore, our findings demonstrate that the increase in loneliness was associated with the adoption of new digital communication tools (r = 0.21, p < 0.001), and significantly higher for individuals who started to adopt at least one new digital communication tool during confinement than for those who did not (z = −4.252, p < 0.001). (4) Conclusions: This study highlights that, although COVID-19 home confinement significantly impacted psychosocial wellbeing during the first wave of the pandemic, this impact did not differ based on lockdown intensity. Recognizing the increasing adoption of digital communication technology in an attempt to reduce lockdown loneliness, future studies should investigate what is needed from the technology to achieve this effect.

Responsible Science and Research Animal Use

ILAR Journal ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Patricia V Turner ◽  
R Wayne Barbee
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Animal Science ◽  
Scientific Excellence ◽  
Experimental Planning ◽  
Animal Use ◽  
Animal Care ◽  
Science And Research ◽  
Ethical Oversight ◽  
Animal Handlers

Abstract This issue of the ILAR Journal focuses on the topic of responsible science as it relates to animal research. We start with the concept of the scientist as a responsible citizen and then move through multiple phases of research including careful experimental planning, reporting, and incorporation of laboratory animal science. The work of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or animal ethical/oversight body in reviewing both animal use and contributing to scientific excellence is explored. Additional topics include protection of animal handlers from multiple experimental hazards, use of agricultural animals and wildlife studies, regulatory ambiguities, and harmonization of animal research. Rounding out the issue is a discussion of how animal care and use programs can enhance animal welfare while mitigating regulatory burden, and our responsibility to clearly communicate the ethical use of animals in advancing biomedical research. A deeper understanding of these topics can assist scientists in simultaneously advancing their research and animal welfare.

scholarly journals Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) practices in the helicopter emergency medical services in Europe: results of an online survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Hilbert-Carius ◽  
Manuel F. Struck ◽  
Marcus Rudolph ◽  
Jürgen Knapp ◽  
Leif Rognås ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Medical Services ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Expert Committee ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Web Portal ◽  
Medical Directors ◽  
Near Future ◽  
Online Web

Abstract Background The extent to which Point-of-care of ultrasound (POCUS) is used in different European helicopter EMS (HEMS) is unknown. We aimed to study the availability, perception, and future aspects of POCUS in the European HEMS using an online survey. Method A survey about the use of POCUS in HEMS was conducted by a multinational steering expert committee and was carried out from November 30, 2020 to December 30, 2020 via an online web portal. Invitations for participation were sent via email to the medical directors of the European HEMS organizations including two reminding notes. Results During the study period, 69 participants from 25 countries and 41 different HEMS providers took part in the survey. 96% (n = 66) completed the survey. POCUS was available in 75% (56% always when needed and 19% occasionally) of the responding HEMS organizations. 17% were planning to establish POCUS in the near future. Responders who provided POCUS used it in approximately 15% of the patients. Participants thought that POCUS is important in both trauma and non-trauma-patients (73%, n = 46). The extended focused assessment sonography for trauma (eFAST) protocol (77%) was the most common protocol used. A POCUS credentialing process including documented examinations was requested in less than one third of the HEMS organizations. Conclusions The majority of the HEMS organizations in Europe are able to provide different POCUS protocols in their services. The most used POCUS protocols were eFAST, FATE and RUSH. Despite the enthusiasm for POCUS, comprehensive training and clear credentialing processes are not available in about two thirds of the European HEMS organizations. Due to several limitations of this survey further studies are needed to evaluate POCUS in HEMS.

Outdoor Seating Design to Facilitate Social Interaction Among Older Adults

2009 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 4-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thamar Swart ◽  
Johan Molenbroek ◽  
Lau Langeveld ◽  
Martin Van Brederode ◽  
Brecht J. Daams
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Social Interaction ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Design Process ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Public Spaces ◽  
Usability Test ◽  
Public Meeting ◽  
Near Future

AT A GLANCE: The number of older adults who like to meet each other in public spaces in the Netherlands is increasing. For this article, older adults were surveyed regarding their wants and needs for public meeting spaces. By means of a literature search on ergonomics, interviews, observations, and discussions with experts and older adults, a list of needs and preferences was created and used to guide a design for an outdoor meeting space for older adults, dubbed “The Oud-door.” Older adults were engaged in the design process by asking them questions, discussing the ideas and concepts with them, and, finally, conducting a usability test. Manufacturer Jan Kuipers Nunspeet will develop this design further, and “The Oud-door” will be available on the market in the near future.

277 Survey of Feedlot Nutritionists Provides Insight on How Industry Professionals Gather Practical Information

2021 ◽  
Vol 99 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 129-129
Author(s):  
Emma L Rients ◽  
Allison VanDerWal ◽  
Mary E Reynolds ◽  
Daniel D Loy ◽  
Stephanie L Hansen
Keyword(s):  
Online Survey ◽  
Large Population ◽  
Postal Service ◽  
Animal Science ◽  
Important Data ◽  
Professional Degree ◽  
Learning Platforms ◽  
Practical Information ◽  
Commercial Research ◽  
Industry Professionals

Abstract A survey of feedlot nutritionists was conducted regarding how industry professionals use published resources. Surveys were included in the spring 2020 mailing to 550 potential attendees of the Plains Nutrition Council meeting. Sixty-two responses were returned via postal service or an online survey platform (Qualtrics). Participants were asked to rank the importance of types of resources, peer-reviewed journals and learning platforms, and demographic questions. A scale of 1 to 5 was used, with 1 being not important and 5 being most important. Data were analyzed using PROC FREQ in SAS 9.4. An overwhelming majority of participants, 90%, reported serving the Plains and Midwest regions, with service split evenly between the regions. Seventy-nine percent of participants reported having a Ph.D. or other professional degree. Interestingly, 43% of participants reported having less than 16 years of professional nutritional consulting experience, and 39% reported having greater than 26 years of experience with the balance reporting in between. Of the resources offered, 87% of participants ranked peer reviewed journals as a 4 or 5, indicating they are one of the most important resources. Eighty percent of respondents found open access publications important (4 or 5), while only 49% said the same for articles accessed via membership/subscription. For Journal of Animal Science, 84% indicated an importance of 4 or 5. Not surprisingly, 75% responded as being a member of ASAS but only 34% responded as attending national or sectional ASAS meetings. This suggests a large population uses memberships for journals and other resources, but not for meetings. Participants were able to write in additional resources they find valuable, and 9 of 14 participants who listed additional resources responded with some form of in-house or commercial research. Through these data, feedlot nutrition researchers can better understand how to reach intended audiences in future publications.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document