Laboratory Animal Workers’ Attitudes and Perceptions Concerning Occupational Risk and Injury

Abstract

Little is known regarding the risk perceptions and attitudes of laboratory animal care workers toward biologic safety. The purpose of this descriptive study was to assess the attitudes and perceptions of laboratory animal workers toward occupational and injury risk. Subscribers to the CompMed and TechLink listservs (n = 4808) were surveyed electronically, and 5.3% responded; data from 215 respondents were included in the final analysis. Primary variables of interest included AALAS certifications status, level of education, and responses to Likert-scale questions related to attitudes and perceptions of occupational risk and injury. Nonparametric (χ²) testing and measures of central tendency and dispersion were used to analyze and describe the data. According to 88.6% of respondents, biologic safety training is provided with information about zoonotic diseases of laboratory animals. Level of education was significantly related to perception of importance regarding wearing personal protective equipment. Participants indicated that appropriate support from coworkers and management staff is received, especially when performance and perception are hindered due to stress and fatigue. Laboratory animal staff are susceptible to injury and exposure to dangerous organisms and toxic substances. For this reason, to maximize safety, yearly biologic safety training should be provided, the importance of protective equipment adherence strengthened, and the culture of safety made a priority within the institution.

Preventing injury from zoonotic exposure is one of the many important objectives of an effective biological safety program. Laboratory animal science is the cornerstone for comparative and translational studies. Staff members who work with animals in research are faced with unique threats not affecting clinical staff in the healthcare industry. Occupational health and safety policies have many purposes, such as to enhance health, facilitate its pursuit, and provide economic advantages to individuals, communities and organizations. Safety policies have an influence on health through an intervening set of variables, which is why the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Institutional Biosafety Committee require specified training for employees working with hazardous substances.

Personnel fulfilling technical roles—such as cagewash technicians, animal care technicians, and veterinary technicians—are as susceptible to biologic injury as are research technicians, veterinarians, and scientists. The likelihood of an occurrence within a research setting, combined with the consequence, such as subsequent infection or developed allergy, is defined as risk.³ Risks can be direct through infection or indirect through damage to the environment. Risks can take many forms, including human or animal cells, bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites, toxins, and allergens, to name a few. Ultimately, risks are anything that can cause disease in other living organisms.³ Injury may occur from contaminated caging equipment, while providing food and water; monitoring animal health, while handling an animal; or while disposing of hazardous material associated with animals. Means of contact and entry of toxic agents may result from skin contact, inhalation, ingestion, gas and vapor, or particulate matter, including dust, fume, mist, and fog.⁶ Staff working with animals for research are exposed to additional risks such as scratches and bites. Whether a staff member is in a technician role or research scientist role, the associated risks can be influenced by one's perceptions of and attitudes toward them.

The attitude and decisions of managers permeate the core activities of strategizing, designing, and leading. Managers working in healthcare and other research organizations should give high priority to the safety of their personnel because it reflects on the services they provide. Staff members’ attitudes and perceptions of risk, however, regardless of training or education, may influence their actions while at work, resulting in increased risk of injury.

Attitudes encompass long-standing evaluations of people and ideas and may influence behaviors. Attitudes have the ability to shape a person's behavior.² Being able to comprehend how attitudes influence behavior would allow safety professionals to better understand the preferences and behaviors behind the actions of a staff member.

Similarly, “perception is closely related to attitudes”¹² and is the process of interpreting and organizing sensations to produce meaningful experiences. Unfortunately, what a person interprets and perceives may not be reality. Organizations that use hazardous substances have a responsibility to focus on the safety of the employees, which is why the Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires specified training for the substances employees are using on a day-to-day basis.

Several recent articles^7,10,11 detail the findings of research related to the assessment of healthcare workers’ perceptions of risk and to the correlation of such risk perceptions to the care taken to prevent injury. The authors of each manuscript identified a key concept relating to one's attitude and perception related to risk. There is a perception among healthcare workers that there isn't time to adhere to hand washing or other safety considerations, such as wearing face masks. In one study,¹⁰ 91.9% of healthcare workers believed that wearing masks, to prevent respiratory infections, was an appropriate component of respiratory hygiene compliance. Despite this response, however, forgetfulness (37.8%) and discomfort (35.1%) were 2 identified obstacles to compliance with these precautions.¹⁰ In addition, a healthcare worker's perceptions of the actual risk and of the effectiveness of the required precautions, influences adherence to the precautions.⁷ Training, communication, and overall availability are additional predictors of adherence to safety precautions. Although heavy workloads and high-intensity job functions may lead to carelessness and impede staff performance, “workers’ participation in safe or unsafe acts is strongly influenced by supervisors’ modeling of the target behavior.”⁸

Except for a single recent article,⁸ no information regarding laboratory animal care workers’ attitudes and perceptions of injury risk has been published. The cited findings⁸ indicate that training has a limited effect on performance and risk perception, and a slight correlation was noted between risk severity of biohazard agent and safety practices. However, many of the participants were just as likely to touch their face whether they were working with an infectious agent or not.⁸ Considering the influence that attitudes and perceptions of injury and occupational safety training may have on behavior, further research is warranted among laboratory animal care workers. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to assess the attitudes and perceptions of occupational and injury risk among laboratory animal workers.

Materials and Methods

Study design.

This was a quantitative, descriptive survey study. AALAS represents personnel and promotes laboratory animal science as a whole. The organization hosts various listservs for the purpose of information exchange. Subscribers to 2 AALAS listservs, CompMed and TechLink, were surveyed electronically.

Sampling and study participants.

By using a convenience sampling methodology, all subscribers to the AALAS CompMed and TechLink listservs (n = 4808) were sent an invitation to respond to the study survey. Some AALAS members were subscribers of both listservs; therefore, potential respondents were instructed to disregard duplicate emails and to complete the survey only once. Follow-up requests were sent at 2 and 4 wk. The target population for this study was all laboratory animal workers in the United States. Our definition of laboratory animal workers included veterinarians, researchers, and technicians who have direct contact with animals or indirect animal contact through tissues, husbandry, and caging materials. Laboratory animal workers with different levels of responsibility have registered with CompMed and TechLink listservs. As such, the names registered with the listserv were used to represent the target population. Inclusion criteria were: at least 18 y of age, a member of AALAS, have the ability to read and understand English to complete the survey, and have direct laboratory animal contact in their current position. Exclusion criteria consisted of no prior laboratory animal care experience, such as those who work in administrative capacities only, and residence outside of the United States. The study was exempted from continuing review by the AT Still University Institutional Review Board.

Data collection.

Data were collected by using SurveyMonkey, a password-protected third-party web survey host. Participant demographics were obtained at the beginning of the survey establishing age, sex, years of experience, job title, education, type of organization, and AALAS credentials. Injury and reporting and occupational health questions followed and addressed the nature of any injures that might have occurred during the last 5 y. Attitude and perception of risk were assessed by using 5-point Likert scale questions. Participants were asked to reflect on their institutions’ biologic safety training, perceptions of risk before and after training and on hand washing and other safety practices. Safety culture was assessed last, again by using a 5-point Likert scale format. Participants were asked to reflect on job satisfaction, how stress and fatigue influenced perception and risk, and the support they receive from management and coworkers on a day-to-day basis. Several questions at the beginning of the survey were used, with permission, from a previous servey,¹⁸ who inquired about the types of injuries, if any, sustained by laboratory animal workers in recent years. Focused questions related to attitude, risk perception, and safety culture were added. Content validity was established by a committee consisting of a veterinarian, animal resources operations manager (CMAR/RLATG), environmental health and safety manager, and a physician researcher.

Statistical analysis.

Continuous variables (that is, age and years of experience) were assessed for normality according to the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, which indicated that the continuous variables were skewed (P < 0.001). To describe the sample, measures of central tendency and dispersion for continuous variables, and frequencies and percentages for categorical variables were computed and reported in narrative and table format for all participant characteristics. Contingency table analysis was conducted by using χ² tests to examine relationships between attitudes and perceptions and relevant categorical variables of interest, such as education level and certification or credential level. To be considered statistically significant, a 2-tailed P value less than 0.05 was assigned a priori.

Likert-type 5-point categories were collapsed to a 3-point category scale. Strongly agree and agree were combined and strongly disagree and disagree were combined to form agree and disagree, respectively. No opinion was the third category. Categories were combined to perform the χ² test. The 2 negatively worded items in the survey were reverse-scored.

Results

Of the 4808 invitations sent, a total of 253 staff members working in the field of laboratory animal science responded, yielding a response rate of 5.3%. Several respondents (n = 38) were removed from data analysis because they were either younger than 18 y, lived outside of the United States, did not have hands-on laboratory animal experience, or did not fully complete the survey. The remaining participants (n = 215) included 80 veterinarians (37.2%), 27 research technicians (12.6%), 23 veterinary technicians (10.7%), and 10 animal care technicians (4.7%), to list a few. The majority of participants were women (n = 162, 75.7%). Participant characteristics are shown in Table 1 and further defined in Table 2. Each participant reported having worked with laboratory animals in some capacity. Because not all questions were answered, the totals provided may be less than 215 for some data.

Table 1.

Characteristics of participants (n= 215)

	Frequency	%
Age (y)a
18–25	5	2.3
26–33	47	21.9
34–41	49	22.8
42–49	43	20.0
50–57	42	19.5
58 or older	23	10.7
Sexb
Female	162	75.7
Male	52	24.3
Professional identification
Veterinarian (DVM or VMD)	80	37.2
Research technician	27	12.6
Facility manager	25	11.6
Veterinary technician	23	10.7
Animal care supervisor	15	7.0
Research compliance	15	7.0
Animal care technician	10	4.7
Researcher (PhD)	5	2.3
Training coordinator	4	1.9
Operations coordinator	3	1.4
Facility director or assistant director	2	0.9
Consultant	2	0.9
Facility administrator or nonmanager	2	0.9
Behaviorist	1	0.5
Environmental enrichment	1	0.5

^aSix respondents chose not to disclose age.

^bOne respondent chose not to disclose sex.

Table 2.

Job categories, years of experience, and sex of participants

		Years of experiencea
	Frequency (%)	Mean ± 1 SD	Median	Female (%)	Male (%)	Total
AALAS Certification
CMAR	5 (2.3)	12.8 ± 2.2	14	4 (80.0)	1 (20.0)	5
Joint CMAR and RLATG	12 (5.6)	23.8 ± 7.2	26	10 (83.3)	2 (16.7)	12
RLATG	66 (30.7)	16.9 ± 10.5	15	51 (78.5)	14 (21.5)	65
RLAT	29 (13.5)	11.1 ± 7.5	9	26 (89.7)	3 (10.3)	29
RALAT	9 (4.2)	8.2 ± 6.9	4	9 (100)	0	9
Not certified	94 (43.7)	15.8 ± 10.6	14	62 (66.0)	32 (34)	94
Total	215 (100)	15.6 ± 10.2	14	162 (75.7)	52 (24.3)	214
Education level
Doctoral degree	85 (38.8)	16.3 ± 10.2	15	56 (65.9)	29 (34.1)	85
Masters degree	22 (10.5)	14.6 ± 9.0	13	14 (63.6)	8 (36.4)	22
4-y college degree	63 (29.2)	14.8 ± 9.8	14	55 (87.3)	8 (12.7)	63
2-y college degree	22 (10.0)	16.4 ± 12.1	15	21 (95.5)	1 (4.5)	22
Some college but no degree	16 (7.8)	16.6 ± 12.4	14	13 (86.7)	2 (13.3)	15
High-school graduate or GED	7 (3.2)	11.4 ± 7.9	8	3 (42.9)	4 (57.1)	7
Total	215 (100)	15.6 ± 10.2	14	162 (75.7)	52 (24.3)	214

^aFour participants did not indicate years of experience.

The majority of laboratory animal workers reported having a safety office (95.8%) and occupational health office (96.3%) at their institution. Of those, 5 persons (2.3%) and 3 persons (1.4%) did not know how to contact the safety office or occupational health office, respectively. Perceived risk of injury in one's current job was low (43.9%) to moderate (41.1%), with 14.9% indicating high risk. Similarly, perceived risk of infection was low (66.8%) to moderate (54%), with 7.9% indicating the risk of infection as high.

Biosafety training.

According to 88.6% of participants, biologic safety training is provided with information about zoonotic diseases of laboratory animals. Academic (8.6%), industry (2.4%), civil service (1.9%), and nonprofit (1.4%) comprised the 11.4% of organizations that did not provide training to laboratory animal staff. No statistical significance was found between the provision of training and type of organization (χ² [4, n = 210] = 4.91, P = 0.28) or the number of employees within an institution (χ² [3, n = 211] = 4.65, P = 0.20). Veterinarians (34.4%) and the Safety (Environmental Health and Safety) office (20.9%) provided training more often than did the Occupational Health office (15.3%), animal resources training staff (14%), and the supervisor (3.3%). Most participants indicated that biologic safety training should be required (98.1%) and that training should be offered annually compared with a one-time training (91.6%). Nearly all (99.1%) participants reported they are cautious of their surroundings. In addition, 96.7% of respondents indicated that they were confident in their ability to recognize biologic hazards, and 88% reported that training helped to better identify risks present in work area. One Certified Manager of Animal Resources (CMAR), 2 Registered Laboratory Animal Technologists (RLATG), and one noncredentialed holder indicated they were not confident in their ability to recognize biologic hazards (1.9%).

Personal protection equipment.

Always wearing required personal protective equipment (PPE) regardless of ABSL was indicated by 88.8% of participants. Among the 8.8% that do not don required PPE were 2 CMAR+RLATGs, 4 RLATGs, 2 Registered Laboratory Animal Technicians (RLAT), 1 Registered Assistant Laboratory Animal Technician (RALAT), and 10 noncredentialed persons. Among the 6.9% that felt wearing PPE was not important were 2 RLATG, 3 RLAT, and 10 noncredentialed workers. In addition, 24.4%, of the total survey sample indicated that more consistent use of PPE would not reduce their risk at work. No statistical significance (χ² [20, n = 2150] = 23.29, P = 0.28) was found between the holding of credentials and the perceived importance of wearing PPE, but a participant's educational level significantly (χ² [20, n = 215] = 34.96, P = 0.02) influenced their perceived importance of wearing PPE. Participants with a 4-y (2.7%) or doctoral (3.7%) degree responded with less perceived importance of wearing PPE. Conversely, no participants with little college education, no college degree, or 2-y degree disagreed with the importance to wearing appropriate PPE (Tables 3 and 4).

Table 3.

Summary of survey responses regarding attitude and perceptions of risk

		Frequency
	Mode	Agree	No opinion	Disagree	Total
Participant knows who to contact should injury occur	5	189	4	18	211
Biologic safety training should be required so that staff are better able to recognize hazards of working with certain species	5	210	0	4	214
Safety training should be given annually compared with a one-time training session	5	197	7	11	215
Certification (RALAT, RLAT, RLATG, CMAR) should be required in an effort to increase ability of staff to recognize work hazards	4	106	37	70	213
The training provided helped participant to better identify risks present in work area	4	168	16	6	190
Perceptions of risks changed after the biologic safety training	4	83	51	56	190
The training received had a hands-on component that helped participant to better understand risks	2	59	36	95	190
Additional safety measures in workplace could reduce risk of infection or injury	4	96	44	74	214
Injuries in work area are an opportunity to provide constructive feedback and training	4	122	54	39	215
Participant is confident in ability to identify or recognize biologic safety hazards in work area	4	206	3	4	213
Participant is cautious of surroundings when working with animals that pose a certain level of danger	5	213	2	0	215
Participant does not wear recommended or required PPE when they do not intend to have direct animal contacta	1	26	5	184	215
Participant always wears recommended or required PPE when entering an animal room, regardless of Animal Biosafety Level	5	190	5	19	214
It is important to put on recommended or required PPE when entering animal rooms, regardless of Animal Biosafety Level	5	192	8	15	215
More consistent use of PPE would reduce risk of infection or injury	3	101	60	52	213
Hand washing is important prior to taking off mask and goggles or faceshield	4	104	46	65	215
Participant would be more likely to wear recommended or required PPE if the safety culture was stronger	3	44	75	95	214
Safety policies and procedures are clearly defined	4	183	13	19	215
Safety policies and procedures are strictly enforced	4	135	22	58	215

^aQuestion was reverse-scored

Table 4.

Summary of significant χ²findings regarding attitude and perceptions of risk

	P
Education compared with Likert Scale responses
It is important to put on recommended/required PPE when entering animal rooms, regardless of ABSL.	0.020
Safety training should be given annually compared with a one-time training session.	0.070
Safety policies and procedures are strictly enforced	0.063
Job classification compared with Likert Scale responses
Safety policies and procedures are clearly defined	0.016
Safety policies and procedures are strictly enforced	0.046

Safety culture.

With regard to safety policies, 85% of participants responded that policies and procedures are clearly defined, and 62.7% indicated that those policies are enforced. Job classification was significantly associated with perception of clearly defined safety policies (χ² [28, n = 200] = 46.27, P = 0.016 as well as safety enforcement (χ² [28, n = 200] = 41.77, P = 0.046). Most participants (85.1%) indicated they have support from their coworkers and feel comfortable asking questions if something is not understood (91.5%). Just over 9% of credentialed respondents (χ² [20, n = 214] = 32.21, P = 0.041), however, indicated difficulty speaking up when they perceive a problem. Significant numbers of participants (64.1% and 45.5%, respectively) indicated that performance (χ² [28, n = 197] = 52.62, P = 0.003) and perception of risk (χ² [28, n = 198] = 55.96, P = 0.001) are impaired when workload is excessive. Although 63.4% of respondents indicated staffing levels are adequate for workload, 66% (χ² [28, n = 200] = 42.48, P = 0.039) reported impairment of performance and risk perception, and 87.3% (χ² [21, n = 198] = 52.75, P < 0.001) indicated a decline in overall effectiveness with fatigue (Tables 5 and 6).

Table 5.

Summary of survey responses regarding safety culture

		Frequency
	Mode	Agree	No opinion	Disagree	Total
Participant has support from coworkers	4	183.0	15	17	215
It is easy for coworkers and me [participant] to ask questions when there is something that is not understood	4	195.0	8	10	213
It is difficult to speak up if I [participant] perceives there is a problema	2	20.0	15	179	214
Participant has knowledge of proper channels to direct questions regarding biologic safety issues	4	203.0	4	8	215
Participant is encouraged by colleagues to report any safety concerns	4	179.0	18	17	214
Participant likes job	4	190.0	15	9	214
Moral is high where I [participant] work	4	111.0	46	57	214
When workload becomes excessive, performance is impaired	4	136.0	22	54	212
When workload becomes excessive, perception of risk is impaired	4	97.0	28	88	213
Participant is less effective at work when fatigued	4	186.0	13	14	213
More likely to make errors in tense situations	4	129.0	21	65	215
Fatigue impairs performance and risk perception	4	143	21	51	215
Levels of staffing in work area are sufficient to handle the amount of work	4	135	25	53	213
Institution does a good job of training new personnel	4	152	24	39	215
Management provides all the necessary information to keep me [participant] safe from biologic hazards	4	170	21	22	213
A safety committee, comprised of managers and technicians, is in place at institution, where safety issues and concerns can be discussed	4	123	25	66	214

^aQuestion reverse-scored

Table 6.

Summary of significant χ²findings regarding safety culture

	P
Certification compared with Likert scale responses
It is difficult to speak up if I [participant] perceives there is a problema	0.041
Participant likes job	0.025
Participant is less effective at work when fatigued	0.043
Education compared with Likert scale responses
When workload becomes excessive, perception of risk is impaired	<0.001
Participant is less effective at work when fatigued	0.001
Job classification compared with Likert scale responses
It is difficult to speak up if I [participant] perceives there is a problema	0.006
When workload becomes excessive, performance is impaired	0.003
When workload becomes excessive, perception of risk is impaired	0.001
Participant is less effective at work when fatigued	<0.001
More likely to make errors in tense situations	<0.001
Fatigue impairs performance and risk perception	0.039

^aQuestion reverse-scored

Discussion

Training is never-ending for laboratory animal professionals, especially with the persistent evolution of science and technology in research. Training, certifications, and interactions between associations such as AALAS and the American Biologic Safety Association play a critical part in the development of competent professionals⁵. Although most (88%) of the participants in the current study reported receiving training, almost half of respondents (45%) indicated that additional training would be beneficial. No statistical significance was found between credentialed respondents and the perceived importance of wearing PPE. Our findings contrast with those of earlier authors, who noted a potential link between staff certification and decreased multidrug resistant organism rates.¹³ The importance of certification should not be underestimated as certification encourages continuing education and training, which decreases a false sense of invulnerability that often accompany several years of experience.

Laboratories pose many dangers, ranging from biologic, chemical, radiation, as well as mechanical. Only one group of authors¹⁸ to date has examined the full extent of occupational illnesses among laboratory animal workers. Their 2005 study aimed to determine the frequency and types of zoonotic diseases transmitted to staff working with laboratory animals or their tissues.¹⁸ Access to a safety office and occupational health office was similar between the current and previous studies, and roughly 88% of the respondents in both studies indicated that some form of training addressing biologic hazards and zoonotic diseases was provided. Most safety training is provided by veterinarians¹⁸ and Environmental Health and Safety offices.⁴ Most respondents to our survey indicated that biosafety training should be required so that staff are better able to recognize hazards. Yearly biosafety training, rather than a one-time session, will enable information to be kept as current as possible.

Providing training by using methodologies that yield the greatest retention should be used. Most respondents (69%) in the current study indicated that hands-on portion was not included in their training. Activities such as spill response and clean up as well as donning and removing PPE likely would be comprehended better if active demonstrations are included. One study⁴ found that laboratory staff and students were required to have more safety training than were senior faculty and staff. Given that experience and stagnant training efforts may cause a false sense of security,¹⁵ more senior staff should be setting an example for junior faculty and students by being actively engaged in annual training. Our findings mirror this presence of a false sense of security, in that respondents with higher levels of education assigned less perceived importance of wearing PPE than did respondents with some to no college education. So, although it is generally believed that persons with higher levels of education make better choices, it is also evident that even the best faculty and staff need continuing education and training. Moreover, “perceived mastery and complacency will remain a constant threat to safety as long as human error exists.”⁹

The majority of the respondents to our survey indicated there was some form of risk associated with their day-to-day activities. Although the perception of risk varied between participants, it was not significantly associated with their adherence to wearing PPE. In contrast, healthcare workers’ compliance with infection control practices was influenced by their perceptions of risk, whereas noncompliance was driven by the staff members’ perception that the safety measures hindered performance.⁷ Another study¹¹ assessed factors that determined adherence to PPE of the face; specifically, the availability of ease of access was a major predictor in PPE compliance. Although the cited study did not address performance hindrance specifically,¹¹ respondents did indicate that having additional safety mea­sures in the workplace and a stronger safety culture would not result in more consistent use of PPE. Furthermore, participants indicated that more consistent use of PPE would not decrease their perceived risk of infection or injury.¹¹ Other authors¹⁰ found that respiratory precautions are used much less than is desired and that respiratory hygiene noncompliance was due to personnel “forgetting” as well as discomfort. Furthermore, most respondents reported confidence in their ability to identify hazards and were cautious of their surroundings.¹⁰ In each of these cited studies,^7,10,11 participants were aware of safety policies and believed in the importance of those policies and procedures yet did not always follow through in practice. We noticed the same trend in behavior: although the majority of participants (88.8%) indicated it was important to wear recommended or required PPE, regardless of reportedly (85%) clearly defined biosafety level containment and reported safety policies, several workers (8.8%) still took considerable risk by not wearing PPE.

To establish an appropriate framework for effectively managing any organization, understanding the link between personal responsibility and safety is important. People's attitudes can influence one to act a particular way, either toward another person or in a situation. Attitudes also shape how people view and behave in certain situations. With regard to biologic safety and risk perception, staff members should always express concern when risk is present or perceived. With the exception of a few respondents, most felt that they were able to reach out to coworkers with questions and that they had coworkers’ support. Having support from coworkers creates a positive attitude, which may ultimately strengthen recognition, risk assessment, and biologic hazard mitigation practices. Engaging workers is essential but oftentimes is difficult to accomplish. The majority of participants indicated they have high job satisfaction, which is refreshing. Engaging with staff and providing recognition, motivation, and appreciation are a few strategies for cultivating an encouraging environment.¹⁶ Ultimately, although coworker support is critical, senior leadership and managers need to demonstrate their commitment as well.⁴ For management to merely say they are committed is insufficient—a true safety culture must exist. In many organizations a perception gap is present and occurs when there is a perceived difference in the success of a safety culture among senior leadership, management, and staff members.¹⁷ If senior leadership is not committed to workplace safety, it will show in their actions.

Due to the voluntary nature of joining an organization as well as the financial responsibility of maintaining professional memberships and credentials, our findings indicate a potential bias in the number of members who hold advanced degrees. As an organization, AALAS does represent the field of laboratory animal science as a whole, but given the few members who responded to the survey, future studies are needed. Future studies should increase efforts to recruit responses from general and research technicians. Most surveys in previous research that assessed risk were either mailed¹⁸ or delivered in person.^7,10,11 One group that assessed biosafety training and incident-reporting practices in the United States used SurveyMonkey and had a low return rate (19%).⁴ Although the current survey was easy to navigate and reminders were sent, many professionals find online surveys unfavorable,¹ and many studies ^1,4,14 that have used an online survey have experienced poor returns, as we did. As more cohorts move toward the Internet, due to financial constraints and ease of accessibility, participation may increase. In addition to only surveying the AALAS membership population and the poor response rate, other limitations of the current study include the self-reporting of data by participants as well as response bias. Readability may result in response bias, given that different participants may view question specifics differently, resulting in over- or underreporting. In addition, when using a questionnaire for data collection, response accuracy is a concern. Participants may, for example, respond in favor to a particular question, when in reality the participant acts to the contrary. Because there is no way to verify the responses provided by participants, we and other authors must rely on participants’ honesty and professional integrity.

In conclusion, biologic safety is important for laboratory animal workers. Care must be taken, not only when handling the animal, but also during the disposal of bedding and decontamination of cages, as well as ensuring adequate containment in the holding room. This is the first study to examine the attitudes and perceptions of occupational risk and injury among laboratory animal workers. Assessing attitudes and perceptions is critical in an effort to reduce injury and prevent disease transmission among laboratory animal workers. One injury sustained at the workplace is one too many. Practical application of our findings include providing adequate training, as well as establishing an effective safety culture which may result in improved programs to reduce workplace hazards and prevent injuries. Effective training may further translate into earlier recognition and abatement of hazards by staff. The development and implementation of an employee mentor/mentee training program as well as implementing effective training methodologies to teach the proper procedures of handling hazards provides the employee a means to protect themselves while at the workplace and allows for a better working environment. There is a constant challenge of managing safety in the workplace and there will always be room for improvement, however, by understanding the dangers of hazardous substances that are used, superior safety and communication can be delivered. Injuries are unavoidable, but with proper training these should be kept to a minimum. Laboratory animal care staff work with infectious agents so it is important to identify barriers that may be present that are affecting the ability and willingness of staff members to adhere to laboratory safety guidelines.