Compassion Fatigue and Satisfaction in US Army Laboratory Animal Medicine Personnel

Abstract

Compassion fatigue (CF) has been described in various "caring professions," particularly the human medical field. Recently, CF has been identified as a concern in animal care professions, specifically veterinary medicine. Despite the perception that veterinary personnel in animal research are at increased risk of CF, few studies have assessed CF in this population. The cur-rent cross-sectional study aimed to describe the prevalence of both CF and compassion satisfaction (CS) among active-duty veterinary personnel in Department of Defense animal research environments, using the Professional Quality of Life Scale (ProQOL). The ProQOL measures burnout and secondary traumatic stress as representative of compassion fatigue, while also measuring the inverse of CF, or CS. The current study set out to identify factors associated with both CF and CS. Validated scales of measurement were used to assess the frequency of exposures and outcomes of interest, while associations were analyzed using linear regression models. The study found that most survey respondents reported high levels of CS and low levels of BO and STS. Factors associated with higher levels of CF and lower CS included working with NHPs, difficulty working with primary investigators, loneliness, and euthanasia distress. These findings can inform future studies of CF in animal research environments and bolster initiatives to reduce occupational stress by the preventing and mitigating CF.

A Preliminary Assessment of Compassion Fatigue in Chimpanzee Caregivers

“…These studies contrast to Schlanser and colleagues [ 24 ] who surveyed 65 Army corps veterinarians and animal care specialists working in Department of Defense Army animal research laboratories. Recruitment was through emails sent to active-duty Army veterinarian personnel and to closed Facebook groups.…”

“…The mean score for STS for chimpanzee caregivers was 27.56 which was like veterinary professionals (27.0) [ 19 ]. The mean was higher than other NHP sanctuary workers (24.0) [ 20 ], Army laboratory workers (18.9) [ 24 ], laboratory workers during the COVID-19 pandemic (21.0) [ 21 ], and overall general animal care workers (24.6) [ 12 ]. Like in the BO scores, Army laboratory workers who worked with NHP scored higher in STS than those who worked with other taxonomic groups [ 24 ].…”

“…The mean BO score for chimpanzee caregivers was 27.46. This was equal to overall veterinary workers (27.6) [ 19 ] and higher than NHP sanctuary workers (24.0) [ 20 ], laboratory workers during the COVID-19 pandemic (25.0) [ 21 ], and much higher than US Army laboratory workers (20.8) [ 24 ]. Although, as noted earlier, within the Army corps, those who worked with nonhuman primates scored significantly higher on BO than those who worked with other taxonomic groups.…”

“…The data in this study with chimpanzee caregivers found no relationship on any of the scales. Army laboratory workers [ 24 ] also showed no relationship between years of experience and CF. Stamm [ 1 ] found no correlation between years in occupation and ProQOL in the general public.…”

“…To date only one published article has evaluated CF in non-human primate (NHP) caregivers. Schlanser and colleagues [ 24 ] surveyed 67 Army laboratory animal care specialists working with a variety of species. Those working with (NHP) had significantly higher levels of CF than those who worked with other species.…”