Influence of animal pain and distress on judgments of animal research justifiability among university undergraduate students and faculty.

Acceptance of animal research by the public depends on several characteristics of the specific experimental study. In particular, acceptance decreases as potential animal pain or distress increases. Our objective in this study was to quantify the magnitude of pain/distress that university undergraduate students and faculty would find to be justifiable in animal research, and to see how that justifiability varied according to the purpose of the research, or the species to which the animal belonged. We also evaluate how demographic characteristics of respondents may be associated with their opinions about justifiability. To accomplish this goal, we developed and administered a survey to students and faculty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Our survey employed Likert-style questions that asked them to designate the level of animal pain or distress that they felt was justifiable for each of the following six purposes-animal disease, human disease, basic research, human medicine, chemical testing, or cosmetic testing. These questions were asked about five different species of animals including monkeys, dogs/cats, pig/sheep, rats/mice, or small fish. We used the data to establish a purpose-specific pain/distress scale, a species-specific pain/distress scale, and a composite pain/distress scale that, for each respondent, averaged the extent of justifiable pain/distress across all purposes and species. For purpose, students were more likely to choose higher levels of pain for animal disease research, followed by human disease, basic research, human medicine, chemical testing, and cosmetic testing. Faculty were more likely to choose the same level of pain for the first four purposes, followed by lower levels of pain for chemical and cosmetic testing. For species, students were more likely to choose higher levels of pain for small fish and rats/mice (tied), pigs/sheep and monkeys (tied), than for dogs/cats. For faculty, order from least to most justifiable pain/distress was small fish, rats/mice, pigs/sheep, then dogs/cats and monkeys (the latter two tied). Interestingly, exploratory factor analysis of the pain/distress scales indicated that when it comes to justifying higher levels of pain and distress, respondents identified two distinct categories of purposes, chemical and cosmetic testing, for which respondents were less likely to justify higher levels of pain or distress as compared to other purposes; and two distinct categories of species, small fish and rats/mice, for which respondents were more likely to justify higher levels of pain/distress than other species. We found that the spread of acceptance of animal research was much smaller when survey questions included pain/distress compared to when only purpose or species were part of the question. Demographically, women, vegetarians/vegans, and respondents with no experience in animal research justified less animal pain/distress than their counterparts. Not surprisingly, a lower level of support for animal research in general was correlated with lower justifiability of pain/distress. Based on these findings, we discuss the role of animal pain/distress in regulatory considerations underlying decisions about whether to approve specific animal uses, and suggest ways to strengthen the ethical review and public acceptance of animal research.

Towards a reconsideration of the use of agree-disagree questions in measuring subjective evaluations.

Agree-disagree (AD) or Likert questions (e.g., "I am extremely satisfied: strongly agree … strongly disagree") are among the most frequently used response formats to measure attitudes and opinions in the social and medical sciences. This review and research synthesis focuses on the measurement properties and potential limitations of AD questions. The research leads us to advocate for an alternative questioning strategy in which items are written to directly ask about their underlying response dimensions using response categories tailored to match the response dimension, which we refer to as item-specific (IS) (e.g., "How satisfied are you: not at all … extremely"). In this review we: 1) synthesize past research comparing data quality for AD and IS questions; 2) present conceptual models of and review research supporting respondents' cognitive processing of AD and IS questions; and 3) provide an overview of question characteristics that frequently differ between AD and IS questions and may affect respondents' cognitive processing and data quality. Although experimental studies directly comparing AD and IS questions yield some mixed results, more studies find IS questions are associated with desirable data quality outcomes (e.g., validity and reliability) and AD questions are associated with undesirable outcomes (e.g., acquiescence, response effects, etc.). Based on available research, models of cognitive processing, and a review of question characteristics, we recommended IS questions over AD questions for most purposes. For researchers considering the use of previously administered AD questions and instruments, issues surrounding the challenges of translating questions from AD to IS response formats are discussed.

Patient perceptions, opinions and satisfaction of telehealth with remote blood pressure monitoring postpartum.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to conduct a post participation survey of respondent experiences with in-home remote patient monitoring via telehealth for blood pressure monitoring of women with postpartum hypertension. We hypothesized that the in-home remote patient monitoring application will be implemented with strong fidelity and have positive patient acceptability. METHODS: This analysis was a planned secondary analysis of a non-randomized controlled trial of telehealth with remote blood pressure patient monitoring for postpartum hypertension compared to standard outpatient monitoring in women with a hypertension-related diagnosis during pregnancy. In collaboration with survey experts, we developed a 41-item web-based survey to assess 1) perception of quality of care received, 2) ease of use/ease to learn the telehealth program, 3) effective orientation of equipment, 4) level of perceived security/privacy utilizing telehealth and 5) problems encountered. The survey included multiple question formats including Likert scale responses, dichotomous Yes/No responses, and free text. We performed a descriptive analysis on all responses and then performed regression analysis on a subset of questions most relevant to the domains of interest. The qualitative data collected through open ended responses was analyzed to determine relevant categories. Intervention participants who completed the study received the survey at the 6-week study endpoint. RESULTS: Sixty six percent of respondents completed the survey. The majority of women found the technology fit easily into their lifestyle. Privacy concerns were minimal and factors that influenced this included age, BMI, marital status, and readmissions. 95% of women preferred remote care for postpartum follow-up, in which hypertensive type, medication use and ethnicity were found to be significant factors in influencing location of follow-up. Most women were satisfied with the devices, but rates varied by hypertensive type, infant discharge rates and BMI. CONCLUSIONS: Postpartum women perceived the telehealth remote intervention was a safe, easy to use method that represented an acceptable burden of care and an overall satisfying method for postpartum blood pressure monitoring. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identification number: NCT03111095 Date of registration: April 12, 2017.

Effects of Sequential Prepaid Incentives on Response Rates, Data Quality, Sample Representativeness, and Costs in a Mail Survey of Physicians.

While collecting high quality data from physicians is critical, response rates for physician surveys are frequently low. A proven method for increasing response in mail surveys is to provide a small, prepaid monetary incentive in the initial mailing. More recently, researchers have begun experimenting with adding a second cash incentive in a follow-up contact in order to increase participation among more reluctant respondents. To assess the effects of sequential incentives on response rates, data quality, sample representativeness, and costs, physicians (N = 1,500) were randomly assigned to treatments that crossed the amount of a first ($5 or $10) and second ($0, $5, or $10) incentive to form the following groups: Group $5/$5; Group $5/$10; Group $10/$0; Group $10/$5; and Group $10/$10. Overall, second incentives were associated with higher response rates and lower costs per completed survey, and while they had no effect on item nonresponse, they increased sample representativeness.

Attitudes toward animals, and how species and purpose affect animal research justifiability, among undergraduate students and faculty.

As members of a university community that sponsors animal research, we developed a survey to improve our knowledge about factors underlying the perceived justifiability of animal research among faculty and undergraduate students. To accomplish this objective, we gathered quantitative data about their general views on animal use by humans, their specific views about the use of different species to address different categories of scientific questions, and their confidence in the translatability of animal research to humans. Students and faculty did not differ in their reported levels of concern for the human use of animals, but women reported significantly higher levels of concern than men. Among students, experience with animal research was positively correlated with less concern with animal use, and having practiced vegetarianism or veganism was associated with more concern. Gender, experience with animal research, and dietary preferences were similarly correlated with the extent of justifiability of animal use across all research purposes and species. Faculty responses resembled those for students, with the exception that justifiability varied significantly based on academic discipline: biological sciences faculty were least concerned about human use of animals and most supportive of animal research regardless of purpose or species. For both students and faculty, justifiability varied depending on research purpose or animal species. Research purposes, ranked in order of justifiability from high to low, was animal disease, human disease, basic research, human medicine, animal production, chemical testing, and cosmetics. Justifiability by purpose was slightly lower for students than for faculty. Species justifiability for students, from high to low, was small fish, rats or mice, pigs or sheep, monkeys, and dogs or cats. Faculty order was the same except that monkeys and dogs or cats were reversed in order. Finally, confidence in the translatability of animal research to our understanding of human biology and medicine was not different between students and faculty or between genders, but among faculty it was highest in biological sciences followed by physical sciences, social sciences, and then arts and humanities. Those with experience in animal research displayed the most confidence, and vegetarians/vegans displayed the least. These findings demonstrate that, although the range of views in any subcategory is large, views about animal research justifiability can vary significantly among respondent subpopulations in predictable ways. In particular, research purpose and choice of animal species are important variables for many people. This supports the claim that ensuring purpose and species are robustly integrated into research proposal reviews and approvals should be considered to be a best practice. We suggest that strengthening this integration beyond what is described in current regulations would better meet the justifiability criteria expressed by members of our campus community.

Assessing undergraduate student and faculty views on animal research: What do they know, whom do they trust, and how much do they care?

Research using animals is controversial. To develop sound public outreach and policy about this issue, we need information about both the underlying science and people's attitudes and knowledge. To identify attitudes toward this subject at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, we developed and administered a survey to undergraduate students and faculty. The survey asked respondents about the importance of, their confidence in their knowledge about, and who they trusted to provide information on animal research. Findings indicated attitudes varied by academic discipline, especially among faculty. Faculty in the biological sciences, particularly those who had participated in an animal research project, reported the issue to be most important, and they reported greater confidence in their knowledge about pro and con arguments. Among students, being female, a vegetarian/vegan, or participating in animal research were associated with higher ratings of importance. Confidence in knowledge about regulation and its adequacy was very low across all groups except biological science faculty. Both students and faculty identified university courses and spokespersons to be the most trusted sources of information about animal research. UW-Madison has a long history of openness about animal research, which correlates with the high level of trust by students and faculty. Nevertheless, confidence in knowledge about animal research and its regulation remains limited, and both students and faculty indicated their desire to receive more information from courses and spokespersons. Based on these findings, we argue that providing robust university-wide outreach and course-based content about animal research should be considered an organizational best practice, in particular for colleges and universities.