Dataset Information

The identification of effective welfare indicators for laboratory-housed macaques using a Delphi consultation process.

ABSTRACT: Despite the importance for both animal welfare and scientific integrity of effective welfare assessment in non-human primates, there has been little or no consensus as what should be assessed. A Delphi consultation process was undertaken to identify the animal- and environment-based measures of welfare for laboratory-housed macaques and to determine their relative importance in on-site welfare assessments. One-hundred fifteen potential indictors were identified through a comprehensive literature search, followed by a two-round iterative electronic survey process to collect expert opinion. Stable group response and consensus about the validity, reliability, and feasibility of the proposed indicators (67.5% agreement) was achieved by the completion of Round Two. A substantially higher proportion of environment-based measures (72%: n?=?44/61) were considered as valid, reliable, and feasible compared to the animal-based measures (22%: n?=?12/54). The indicators that ranked most highly for assessing welfare were the presence of self-harm behaviours and the provision of social enrichment. This study provides an empirical basis upon which these indicators can be validated and then integrated into assessment tools developed for macaques and emphasises the need to include both animal- and environment-based indicators for accurate welfare monitoring.

SUBMITTER: Truelove MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7683591 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The identification of effective welfare indicators for laboratory-housed macaques using a Delphi consultation process.

Truelove Melissa A MA Martin Jessica E JE Langford Fritha M FM Leach Matthew C MC

Scientific reports 20201123 1

Despite the importance for both animal welfare and scientific integrity of effective welfare assessment in non-human primates, there has been little or no consensus as what should be assessed. A Delphi consultation process was undertaken to identify the animal- and environment-based measures of welfare for laboratory-housed macaques and to determine their relative importance in on-site welfare assessments. One-hundred fifteen potential indictors were identified through a comprehensive literature ...[more]

PMID: 33230175

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:BackgroundIndicators are essential instruments for monitoring and evaluating population health. The selection of a multidimensional set of indicators should not only reflect the scientific evidence on health outcomes and health determinants, but also the views of health experts and stakeholders. The aim of this study is to describe the Delphi selection process designed to promote agreement on indicators considered relevant to evaluate population health at the European regional level.MethodsIndicators were selected in a Delphi survey conducted using a web-platform designed to implement and monitor participatory processes. It involved a panel of 51 experts and 30 stakeholders from different areas of knowledge and geographies. In three consecutive rounds the panel indicated their level of agreement or disagreement with indicator's relevance for evaluating population health in Europe. Inferential statistics were applied to draw conclusions on observed level of agreement (Scott's Pi interrater reliability coefficient) and opinion change (McNemar Chi-square test). Multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to check if the field of expertise influenced the panellist responses (Wilk's Lambda test).ResultsThe panel participated extensively in the study (overall response rate: 80%). Eighty indicators reached group agreement for selection in the areas of: economic and social environment (12); demographic change (5); lifestyle and health behaviours (8); physical environment (6); built environment (12); healthcare services (11) and health outcomes (26). Higher convergence of group opinion towards agreement on the relevance of indicators was seen for lifestyle and health behaviours, healthcare services, and health outcomes. The panellists' field of expertise influenced responses: statistically significant differences were found for economic and social environment (p < 0.05 in round 1 and 2), physical environment (p < 0.01 in round 1) and health outcomes (p < 0.01 in round 3).ConclusionsThe high levels of participation observed in this study, by involving experts and stakeholders and ascertaining their views, underpinned the added value of using a transparent Web-Delphi process to promote agreement on what indicators are relevant to appraise population health.

Project description:BackgroundWomen with breast cancer have different chances of surviving their disease, depending on where they live. Variations in survival may stem from unequal access to prompt diagnosis, treatment and care. Implementation of the right to health may help remedy such inequalities. The right to health is enshrined in international human rights law, notably Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. A human rights-based approach to health requires a robust, just and efficient health system, with access to adequate health services and medicines on a non-discriminatory basis. However, it may prove challenging for health policymakers and cancer management specialists to implement and monitor this right in national health systems.MethodThis article presents the results of a Delphi study designed to select indicators of implementation of the right to health to inform breast cancer care and management. In a systematic process, 13 experts examined an initial list of 151 indicators.ResultsAfter two rounds, 54 indicators were selected by consensus, three were rejected, three were added, and 97 remained open for debate. For breast cancer, right-to-health features selected as worth implementing and monitoring included the formal recognition of the right to health in breast cancer strategies; a population-based screening programme, prompt diagnosis, strong referral systems and limited waiting times; the provision of palliative, survivorship and end-of-life care; the availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality (AAAQ) of breast cancer services and medicines; the provision of a system of accountability; and the collection of anonymised individual data to target patterns of discrimination.ConclusionWe propose a set of indicators as a guide for health policy experts seeking to design national cancer plans that are based on a human rights-based approach to health, and for cancer specialists aiming to implement principles of the right to health in their practice. The 54 indicators selected may be used in High-Income Countries, or member states of the OECD who also have signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to monitor progress towards implementation of the right to health for women with breast cancer.

Dataset Information

The identification of effective welfare indicators for laboratory-housed macaques using a Delphi consultation process.

Publications

The identification of effective welfare indicators for laboratory-housed macaques using a Delphi consultation process.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets