Dataset Information

Facilitating collaborative animal research: The development and implementation of a Master Reciprocal Institutional Agreement for Animal Care and Use.

ABSTRACT: Ensuring appropriate review, approval, and oversight of research involving animals becomes increasingly complex when researchers collaborate across multiple sites. In these situations, it is important that the division of responsibilities is clear and that all involved parties share a common understanding. The National Institutes of Health Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare and the United States Department of Agriculture Animal Plant Health Inspection Service require an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) to review the care and use of animals in research, and both agree that it is acceptable for one IACUC to review the work taking place at multiple institutions. With this in mind, several Harvard-affiliated hospitals and academic centers developed the Master Reciprocal Institutional Agreement for Animal Care and Use (Master IACUC Agreement) to support collaboration, decrease administrative burden, increase efficiencies, reduce duplicative efforts, and ensure appropriate protections for animals used in research. Locally, the Master IACUC Agreement has fostered greater collaboration and exchange while ensuring appropriate review and oversight of research involving animals. As multisite animal protocols become more prevalent, this Agreement could provide a model for a distributed, national network of IACUC reliance.

SUBMITTER: Holthaus K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7159813 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Facilitating collaborative animal research: The development and implementation of a Master Reciprocal Institutional Agreement for Animal Care and Use.

Holthaus Kathryn K Goldberg David D Connelly Carolyn C Corning Brian B Nascimento Christina C Witte Elizabeth E Bierer Barbara E BE

Journal of clinical and translational science 20200226 2

Ensuring appropriate review, approval, and oversight of research involving animals becomes increasingly complex when researchers collaborate across multiple sites. In these situations, it is important that the division of responsibilities is clear and that all involved parties share a common understanding. The National Institutes of Health Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare and the United States Department of Agriculture Animal Plant Health Inspection Service require an Institutional Animal Car ...[more]

PMID: 32313698

Similar Datasets

Project description:Anthropogenic derived environmental change is challenging earth's biodiversity. To implement effective management, it is imperative to understand how organisms are responding over broad spatiotemporal scales. Collection of these data is generally beyond the budget of individual researchers and the integration and sharing of ecological data and associated infrastructure is becoming more common. However, user groups differ in their expectations, standards of performance, and desired outputs from research investment, and accommodating the motivations and fears of potential users from the outset may lead to higher levels of participation. Here we report upon a study of the Australian ornithology community, which was instigated to better understand perceptions around participation in nationally coordinated research infrastructure for detecting and tracking the movement of birds. The community was surveyed through a questionnaire and individuals were asked to score their motivations and fears around participation. Principal Components Analysis was used to reduce the dimensionality of the data and identify groups of questions where respondents behaved similarly. Linear regressions and model selection were then applied to the principal components to determine how career stage, employment role, and years of biotelemetry experience affected the respondent's motivations and fears for participation. The analysis showed that across all sectors (academic, government, NGO) there was strong motivation to participate and belief that national shared biotelemetry infrastructure would facilitate bird management and conservation. However, results did show that a cross-sector cohort of the Australian ornithology community were keen and ready to progress collaborative infrastructure for tracking birds, and measures including data-sharing agreements could increase participation. It also informed that securing initial funding would be a significant challenge, and a better option to proceed may be for independent groups to coordinate through existing database infrastructure to form the foundation from which a national network could grow.

Project description:IntroductionDespite carrying a disproportionately high burden of depression, patients in low-income countries lack access to effective care. The collaborative care model (CoCM) has robust evidence for clinical effectiveness in improving mental health outcomes. However, evidence from real-world implementation of CoCM is necessary to inform its expansion in low-resource settings.MethodsWe conducted a 2-year mixed-methods study to assess the implementation and clinical impact of CoCM using the WHO Mental Health Gap Action Programme protocols in a primary care clinic in rural Nepal. We used the Capability Opportunity Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) implementation research framework to adapt and study the intervention. To assess implementation factors, we qualitatively studied the impact on providers' behaviour to screen, diagnose and treat mental illness. To assess clinical impact, we followed a cohort of 201 patients with moderate to severe depression and determined the proportion of patients who had a substantial clinical response (defined as ≥50% decrease from baseline scores of Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) to measure depression) by the end of the study period.ResultsProviders experienced improved capability (enhanced self-efficacy and knowledge), greater opportunity (via access to counsellors, psychiatrist, medications and diagnostic tests) and increased motivation (developing positive attitudes towards people with mental illness and seeing patients improve) to provide mental healthcare. We observed substantial clinical response in 99 (49%; 95% CI: 42% to 56%) of the 201 cohort patients, with a median seven point (Q1:-9, Q3:-2) decrease in PHQ-9 scores (p<0.0001).ConclusionUsing the COM-B framework, we successfully adapted and implemented CoCM in rural Nepal, and found that it enhanced providers' positive perceptions of and engagement in delivering mental healthcare. We observed clinical improvement of depression comparable to controlled trials in high-resource settings. We recommend using implementation research to adapt and evaluate CoCM in other resource-constrained settings to help expand access to high-quality mental healthcare.

Project description:Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the '3Rs'), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they design research programmes, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on methods employed by other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including on issues around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, 'cultures of care', harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process outlined below underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving communication across different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing the effectiveness of future research at the interface between the humanities, social sciences, science and science policy.

Dataset Information

Facilitating collaborative animal research: The development and implementation of a Master Reciprocal Institutional Agreement for Animal Care and Use.

Publications

Facilitating collaborative animal research: The development and implementation of a Master Reciprocal Institutional Agreement for Animal Care and Use.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets