Dataset Information

Public consultation in the evaluation of animal research protocols.

ABSTRACT: One response to calls for increased openness in animal research is to make protocols publicly accessible, but it is unclear what type of input the public would provide if given this opportunity. In this study we invited public responses to five different research projects, using non-technical summaries intended for lay audiences. Our aim was to assess the potential for this type of public consultation in protocol review, and a secondary aim was to better understand what types of animal research people are willing to accept and why. US participants (n = 1521) were asked (via an online survey) "Do you support the use of these (insert species) for this research", and responded using a seven-point scale (1 = "No", 4 = "Neutral", and 7 = "Yes"). Participants were asked to explain the reasons for their choice; open-ended text responses were subjected to thematic analysis. Most participants (89.7%) provided clear comments, showing the potential of an online forum to elicit feedback. Four themes were prevalent in participant reasoning regarding their support for the proposed research: 1) impact on animals, 2) impact on humans, 3) scientific merit, and 4) availability of alternatives. Participant support for the proposed research varied but on average was close to neutral (mean ± SD: 4.5 ± 2.19) suggesting some ambivalence to this animal use. The protocol describing Parkinson's research (on monkeys) was least supported (3.9 ± 2.17) and the transplant research (on pigs) was most supported (4.9 ± 2.02). These results indicate that public participants are sensitive to specifics of a protocol. We conclude that an online forum can provide meaningful public input on proposed animal research, offering research institutions the opportunity for improved transparency and the chance to reduce the risk that they engage in studies that are out of step with community values.

SUBMITTER: Brunt MW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8635329 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEffective public health emergency preparedness and response systems are important in mitigating the impact of all-hazards emergencies on population health. The evidence base for public health emergency preparedness (PHEP) is weak, however, and previous reviews have noted a substantial proportion of anecdotal event reports. To investigate the body of research excluding the anecdotal reports and better understand primary and analytical research for PHEP, a scoping review was conducted with two objectives: first, to develop a thematic map focused on primary research; and second, to use this map to inform and guide an understanding of knowledge gaps relevant to research and practice in PHEP.MethodsA scoping review was conducted based on established methodology. Multiple databases of indexed and grey literature were searched based on concepts of public health, emergency, emergency management/preparedness and evaluation/evidence. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied iteratively. Primary research studies that were evidence-based or evaluative in nature were included in the final group of selected studies. Thematic analysis was conducted for this group. Stakeholder consultation was undertaken for the purpose of validating themes and identifying knowledge gaps. To accomplish this, a purposive sample of researchers and practicing professionals in PHEP or closely related fields was asked to complete an online survey and participate in an in-person meeting. Final themes and knowledge gaps were synthesized after stakeholder consultation.ResultsDatabase searching yielded 3015 citations and article selection resulted in a final group of 58 articles. A list of ten themes from this group of articles was disseminated to stakeholders with the survey questions. Survey findings resulted in four cross-cutting themes and twelve stand-alone themes. Several key knowledge gaps were identified in the following themes: attitudes and beliefs; collaboration and system integration; communication; quality improvement and performance standards; and resilience. Resilience emerged as both a gap and a cross-cutting theme. Additional cross-cutting themes included equity, gender considerations, and high risk or at-risk populations.ConclusionsIn this scoping review of the literature enhanced by stakeholder consultation, key themes and knowledge gaps in the PHEP evidence base were identified which can be used to inform future practice-oriented research in PHEP.

Project description:BackgroundAnimal research (AR) findings often do not translate to humans; one potential reason is the poor methodological quality of AR. We aimed to determine this quality of AR reported in critical care journals.MethodsAll AR published from January to June 2012 in three high-impact critical care journals were reviewed. A case report form and instruction manual with clear definitions were created, based on published recommendations, including the ARRIVE guidelines. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics.ResultsSeventy-seven AR publications were reviewed. Our primary outcome (animal strain, sex, and weight or age described) was reported in 52 (68%; 95% confidence interval, 56% to 77%). Of the 77 publications, 47 (61%) reported randomization; of these, 3 (6%) reported allocation concealment, and 1 (2%) the randomization procedure. Of the 77 publications, 31 (40%) reported some type of blinding; of these, disease induction (2, 7%), intervention (7, 23%), and/or subjective outcomes (17, 55%) were blinded. A sample size calculation was reported in 4/77 (5%). Animal numbers were missing in the Methods section in 16 (21%) publications; when stated, the median was 32 (range 6 to 320; interquartile range, 21 to 70). Extra animals used were mentioned in the Results section in 31 (40%) publications; this number was unclear in 23 (74%), and >100 for 12 (16%). When reporting most outcomes, numbers with denominators were given in 35 (45%), with no unaccounted numbers in 24 (31%), and no animals excluded from analysis in 20 (26%). Most (49, 64%) studies reported >40, and another 19 (25%) reported 21 to 40 statistical comparisons. Internal validity limitations were discussed in 7 (9%), and external validity (to humans) discussed in 71 (92%), most with no (30, 42%) or only a vague (9, 13%) limitation to this external validity mentioned.ConclusionsThe reported methodological quality of AR was poor. Unless the quality of AR significantly improves, the practice may be in serious jeopardy of losing public support.

Project description:Background:High quality public engagement and involvement (PEI) in data-intensive health research is seen as one way of ensuring that social legitimacy, i.e. a social license, is conferred through public acceptance of the need for research use of their data. This is a complex research area, and portfolios of involvement have been suggested, but not yet evaluated, to support the role of public contributors. The study aim was to evaluate if and how membership of a data-intensive research public forum can act as a mechanism for enhancing members' personal development. Our objective was to understand the circumstances and mechanisms that help to explain how, why and for whom involvement with a public forum enhanced those members' personal development. Method:Qualitative data were collected from 15 current and previous members, via semi-structured interviews, notes from meetings, and consultations with and feedback from members. Data were critically compared, contrasted and reviewed until no new themes could be discerned and then condensed into context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations. Realist evaluation was used to generate a theoretical and empirical appreciation of the contextual circumstances and mechanisms which help to explain the extent to which involvement with a public forum would enhance members' personal development and, if so, how, why, and for whom. Results:Three CMO configurations were identified. All of them showed that using the portfolio facilitated growth in forum members' personal development, but only where the members valued using the portfolio. This was particularly so for female members. Members valued the portfolio in one or more of three ways: as a tool to record and evidence activities, to facilitate reflective practice or as a guiding framework. Conclusions:Data analysis and consideration of the three CMO configurations suggests a refined middle range theory that 'The use of a portfolio as a framework for learning in a public forum will facilitate members' personal development if they value its use as a framework for learning'. Further work is needed to confirm these findings both elsewhere in data-intensive health research and in other complex research areas using public forums for PEI. Plain English summary:Public engagement and involvement in health research is now well established and makes a valuable contribution to the research process. However, little is known about its impact on participants. This article investigates how involvement in a data-intensive health research public forum impacts on public forum members, rather than the research process. Personal involvement portfolios were used to support their involvement work and help evaluate if and how involvement in research activities enhanced members' personal development. Taking a realist evaluation approach, 'Context-Mechanism-Outcome' configurations were used to explore how membership of a public forum might enhance public forum members' personal development. The Context-Mechanism-Outcome configuration refers to an exploration of what influences the extent to which an intervention is successful or unsuccessful in producing positive outcomes and tries to identify the reasons why it is successful for some and unsuccessful for others. However, evidence from this realist evaluation recommends that engagement and involvement should always be underpinned by procedures which ensure that public contributors receive ongoing and tailored guidance and support throughout the process.

Project description:BackgroundThe evaluation of information retrieval techniques has traditionally relied on human judges to determine which documents are relevant to a query and which are not. This protocol is used in the Text Retrieval Evaluation Conference (TREC), organized annually for the past 15 years, to support the unbiased evaluation of novel information retrieval approaches. The TREC Genomics Track has recently been introduced to measure the performance of information retrieval for biomedical applications.ResultsWe describe two protocols for evaluating biomedical information retrieval techniques without human relevance judgments. We call these protocols No Title Evaluation (NT Evaluation). The first protocol measures performance for focused searches, where only one relevant document exists for each query. The second protocol measures performance for queries expected to have potentially many relevant documents per query (high-recall searches). Both protocols take advantage of the clear separation of titles and abstracts found in Medline. We compare the performance obtained with these evaluation protocols to results obtained by reusing the relevance judgments produced in the 2004 and 2005 TREC Genomics Track and observe significant correlations between performance rankings generated by our approach and TREC. Spearman's correlation coefficients in the range of 0.79-0.92 are observed comparing bpref measured with NT Evaluation or with TREC evaluations. For comparison, coefficients in the range 0.86-0.94 can be observed when evaluating the same set of methods with data from two independent TREC Genomics Track evaluations. We discuss the advantages of NT Evaluation over the TRels and the data fusion evaluation protocols introduced recently.ConclusionOur results suggest that the NT Evaluation protocols described here could be used to optimize some search engine parameters before human evaluation. Further research is needed to determine if NT Evaluation or variants of these protocols can fully substitute for human evaluations.

Dataset Information

Public consultation in the evaluation of animal research protocols.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets