Depression is the leading cause of disability worldwide, and its prevalence is 2 times higher in women than in men. There is, however, a lack of data on sex-specific pathophysiology of this disorder. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify the biological sex differences found in major depressive disorder (MDD) in studies published in the last 10 years. We conducted a literature search using the Medline, PsycInfo, PubMed, and Web of Science databases, selecting English-language studies that included physiological measures compared by sex in addition to MDD. We identified 20 relevant studies, which consisted primarily of mixed methodology and samples. The reported physiological measures comprised a variety of serum biomarkers, gene mRNA expression, and brain activity. Findings suggest different biological patterns in those with MDD depending on sex. Specifically, women presented higher levels of inflammatory, neurotrophic, and serotonergic markers and a stronger correlation between levels of some inflammatory and neurotrophic factors and the severity of symptoms. This review provides information about possible different biological patterns for women and men with depressive disorder and may have important implications for treatment. Future research should include homogeneous samples; make comparisons based on sex, control sex hormone fluctuations and pharmacological treatment; and use consistent criteria for evaluating psychobiological changes in MDD.

Many workers contribute to the success of animal welfare and study outcomes in biomedical research. However, the professional quality of life (ProQoL) of those who work with laboratory animals has not been explored in Spain. To this end, we adapted the ProQoL scale to the Spanish population working with laboratory animals. Participants were contacted by email and asked to complete an anonymous on-line questionnaire. The study comprised a total of 498 participants, 12.4% welfare officers/veterinarians, 19.5% caretaker/technicians, 13.9% principal investigators, 20.7% investigators, 13.6% research technicians, and 19.9% PhD students. The adapted scale revealed very good reliability and internal validity, providing information about two different subscales, compassion satisfaction and compassion fatigue. Animal-facility personnel showed higher total ProQoL and compassion-satisfaction scores than researchers; PhD students showed the lowest scores. Thus, our results indicate that job category is a contributing factor in perceived professional quality of life. We observed that compassion satisfaction is negatively associated with the perceived animal stress/pain. Participants reporting poorer compassion satisfaction also reported lower social-support scores. Overall, our ProQoL scale is a useful tool for analyzing the professional quality of life in the Spanish population, and may help to design future interventions to improve workplace wellbeing in Spain and other Spanish-speaking populations.

Background Replacement, reduction and refinement, the 3R principles, provide a framework to minimize the use and suffering of animals in science. In this context, we aimed to determine the actual perception that individuals working with laboratory rodents in biomedical research have on animal welfare and on their interaction with the animals, as well as how they perceive its impact on their social relations. To this end, we designed an anonymous on-line survey for people working with rodents, at three responsibility levels, in Spain. Results Of the 356 participants, 239 were women (67 %); 263 were researchers (74 %), and 93 animal facility staff (26 %), of which 55 were caretakers/technicians (15 %), and 38 welfare officer/veterinarians (11 %). Animal facility staff indicated environmental enrichment to be a universal practice. About half of the participants reported that, in their opinion, animals suffer “little to none” or “minor” stress and pain. Animal caretakers/technicians and researchers perceived higher levels of stress and pain than welfare officers/veterinarians. Participants judged decapitation the most unpleasant method to kill rodents, whereas anaesthetic overdose was the least one. A sizable proportion − 21 % of animal caretakers/technicians and 11.4 % of researchers - stated that they were never given the choice not to euthanize the rodents they work with. Overall, women reported higher interactions with animals than men. Nevertheless, we could detect a significant correlation between time spent with the animals and interaction scores. Notably, 80 % of animal facility staff and 92 % of researchers rarely talked about their work with laboratory rodents with people outside their inner social circle. Conclusions Overall, the participants showed high awareness and sensitivity to rodent wellbeing; animal facility staff reported a similar perception on welfare questions, independently of their category, while researchers, who spent less time with the animals, showed less awareness and manifested lower human-animal interaction and less social support. Regarding the perception on social acceptance of laboratory animal work, all groups were cautious and rarely talked about their job, suggesting that it is considered a sensitive issue in Spain.

Background The use of animals in biomedical science remains controversial. An individual’s level of concern is generally influenced by their culture, previous or current experience with animals, and the specific animal species in question. In this study we aimed to explore what people in Spain who had never or who no longer worked with laboratory animals thought of the use of mice, pigs, dogs and monkeys for biomedical research purposes. We also aimed to determine whether or not people currently involved in biomedical research with the aforementioned species felt their work was justified. Results The study comprised a total of 807 participants (never worked = 285, used to work = 56, currently working = 466), almost two thirds of whom were women. Our results revealed that the phylogenetic scale is an important factor in people’s opinions of the use of certain species in research. The percentage of people who were against the use of dogs or monkeys was higher than that of those who were against the use of mice or pigs. The main reasons given for having stopped working with laboratory animals were change of professional career and change in research project. Participants who were currently working with animals believed that their work was justified, but said they did not talk about it with people outside their immediate social circle. Conclusions Our findings suggest that there is a difference in moral status between monkeys and mice, as well as between companion animals (dogs) and farm animals (pigs). Our results support the idea that working with laboratory animals is a sensitive issue in Spain.

No abstract

Background In Spain, the perceived professional quality of life among veterinarians has not been explored. Methods Veterinarians were invited to complete an online questionnaire in which they answered the Professional Quality of Life scale, the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey and the Warwick‐Edinburgh Mental Well‐Being Scale. Participants were asked whether they were receiving psychological therapy or were taking anxiolytics, hypnotics or antidepressant medication. Alcohol consumption was measured using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test and nicotine dependence was assessed using the Fagerström test; participants were asked whether they took illegal drugs. Results The study sample comprised a total of 602 veterinarians, most of whom reported average levels of compassion satisfaction, secondary stress trauma and burnout. Emotional support and mental wellbeing influenced participants’ professional quality of life. The percentage of veterinarians in psychological therapy and/or taking anxiolytics was higher than in the general population. Conclusions A considerable number of clinical veterinarians in Spain may be suffering from work‐related stress. Our study identifies salary, emotional support and mental wellbeing as important factors that affect the professional quality of life. Interventions to improve veterinary clinicians’ professional quality of life should therefore focus on these factors.

No abstract

No abstract