3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Harmonisation of welfare indicators for macaques and marmosets used or bred for research

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: Accurate assessment of the welfare of non-human primates (NHPs) used and bred for scientific purposes is essential for effective implementation of obligations to optimise their well-being, for validation of refinement techniques and novel welfare indicators, and for ensuring the highest quality data is obtained from these animals. Despite the importance of welfare assessment in NHP research, there is little consensus on what should be measured. Greater harmonisation of welfare indicators between facilities would enable greater collaboration and data sharing to address welfare-related questions in the management and use of NHPs.

          Methods: A Delphi consultation was used to survey attendees of the 2019 NC3Rs Primate Welfare Meeting (73 respondents) to build consensus on which welfare indicators for macaques and marmosets are reliable, valid, and practicable, and how these can be measured.

          Results: Self-harm behaviour, social enrichment, cage dimensions, body weight, a health monitoring programme, appetite, staff training, and positive reinforcement training were considered valid, reliable, and practicable indicators for macaques (≥70% consensus) within a hypothetical scenario context involving 500 animals. Indicators ranked important for assessing marmoset welfare were body weight, NHP induced and environmentally induced injuries, cage furniture, huddled posture, mortality, blood in excreta, and physical enrichment. Participants working with macaques in infectious disease and breeding identified a greater range of indicators as valid and reliable than did those working in neuroscience and toxicology, where animal-based indicators were considered the most important. The findings for macaques were compared with a previous Delphi consultation, and the expert-defined consensus from the two surveys used to develop a prototype protocol for assessing macaque welfare in research settings.

          Conclusions: Together the Delphi results and proto-protocol enable those working with research NHPs to more effectively assess the welfare of the animals in their care and to collaborate to advance refinement of NHP management and use.

          Related collections

          Most cited references132

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus

          The Delphi technique is a widely used and accepted method for gathering data from respondents within their domain of expertise. The technique is designed as a group communication process which aims to achieve a convergence of opinion on a specific real-world issue. The Delphi process has been used in various fields of study such as program planning, needs assessment, policy determination, and resource utilization to develop a full range of alternatives, explore or expose underlying assumptions, as well as correlate judgments on a topic spanning a wide range of disciplines. The Delphi technique is well suited as a method for consensus-building by using a series of questionnaires delivered using multiple iterations to collect data from a panel of selected subjects. Subject selection, time frames for conducting and completing a study, the possibility of low response rates, and unintentionally guiding feedback from the respondent group are areas which should be considered when designing and implementing a Delphi study. Accessed 68,465 times on https://pareonline.net from August 30, 2007 to December 31, 2019. For downloads from January 1, 2020 forward, please click on the PlumX Metrics link to the right.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Answering the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure for Coding Data

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Using and Reporting the Delphi Method for Selecting Healthcare Quality Indicators: A Systematic Review

              Objective Delphi technique is a structured process commonly used to developed healthcare quality indicators, but there is a little recommendation for researchers who wish to use it. This study aimed 1) to describe reporting of the Delphi method to develop quality indicators, 2) to discuss specific methodological skills for quality indicators selection 3) to give guidance about this practice. Methodology and Main Finding Three electronic data bases were searched over a 30 years period (1978–2009). All articles that used the Delphi method to select quality indicators were identified. A standardized data extraction form was developed. Four domains (questionnaire preparation, expert panel, progress of the survey and Delphi results) were assessed. Of 80 included studies, quality of reporting varied significantly between items (9% for year's number of experience of the experts to 98% for the type of Delphi used). Reporting of methodological aspects needed to evaluate the reliability of the survey was insufficient: only 39% (31/80) of studies reported response rates for all rounds, 60% (48/80) that feedback was given between rounds, 77% (62/80) the method used to achieve consensus and 57% (48/80) listed quality indicators selected at the end of the survey. A modified Delphi procedure was used in 49/78 (63%) with a physical meeting of the panel members, usually between Delphi rounds. Median number of panel members was 17(Q1:11; Q3:31). In 40/70 (57%) studies, the panel included multiple stakeholders, who were healthcare professionals in 95% (38/40) of cases. Among 75 studies describing criteria to select quality indicators, 28 (37%) used validity and 17(23%) feasibility. Conclusion The use and reporting of the Delphi method for quality indicators selection need to be improved. We provide some guidance to the investigators to improve the using and reporting of the method in future surveys.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: ResourcesRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: ResourcesRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: ResourcesRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Journal
                F1000Res
                F1000Res
                F1000Research
                F1000 Research Limited (London, UK )
                2046-1402
                3 March 2022
                2022
                : 11
                : 272
                Affiliations
                [1 ]National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), London, NW1 2BE, UK
                [2 ]School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
                [3 ]Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, GA 30329, USA
                [1 ]Center for Behavioural Science and Mental Health, Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS), Rome, Italy
                National Centre for the Replacement, Reduction and Refinement of Animals in Research, UK
                Author notes

                Competing interests: MJP is an employee of the NC3Rs but had no role in post-publication review of the article.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8814-0512
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7568-7132
                Article
                10.12688/f1000research.109380.1
                9459172
                84f499c9-8e0b-4027-a6a8-c9ea8cb1b365
                Copyright: © 2022 Prescott MJ et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 16 February 2022
                Funding
                The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Articles

                behaviour,callithrix,macaca,non-human primate,refinement,welfare assessment,well-being,3rs

                Comments

                Comment on this article