IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0300031.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceptions of 3R implementation in European animal research: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-synthesis of barriers and facilitators

Author

Listed:
  • Edwin Louis-Maerten
  • Aoife Milford
  • David M Shaw
  • Lester D Geneviève
  • Bernice S Elger

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this systematic review was to examine how the scientific community in Europe that is involved with research with animals perceives and experiences the implementation of 3R (Replace, Reduce, Refine). Methods: A systematic search of the literature published in the past ten years was performed in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. Publications were screened for eligibility using a priori inclusion criteria, and only empirical evidence (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methodologies) was retained. Quantitative survey items were investigated by conducting a meta-analysis, and the qualitative data was summarized using an inductive meta-synthetic approach. Included publications were assessed using the Quality Assessment for Diverse Studies tool. Results: 17 publications were included (eight quantitative, seven qualitative, two mixed-methods). The meta-analysis revealed that scientists are skeptical about achieving replacement, even if they believe that 3R improve the quality of experimental results. They are optimistic concerning the impact of 3R on research costs and innovation, and see education as highly valuable for the implementation of 3R. The meta-synthesis revealed four barriers (systemic dynamics, reification process, practical issues, insufficient knowledge) and four facilitators (efficient use of animals, caring for animals, regulatory uptake, supportive workplace environment). Conclusion: These findings show actionable levers at the local and systemic levels, and may inform regulators and institutions in their 3R policies. Trial registration: The protocol was registered into the PROSPERO database under the number CRD42023395769.

Suggested Citation

  • Edwin Louis-Maerten & Aoife Milford & David M Shaw & Lester D Geneviève & Bernice S Elger, 2024. "Perceptions of 3R implementation in European animal research: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-synthesis of barriers and facilitators," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(3), pages 1-22, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0300031
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300031
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300031&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0300031?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0300031. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.