The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations’ Research and Animal Welfare group members reflected on the concept of a Culture of Care in relation to animal care and use and on differences in its understanding and application across European pharmaceutical companies. The term ‘Culture of Care’ is used across different regions and organizations but rarely with any defined indicators to support working practice. The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations’ Research and Animal Welfare group has developed a framework to help organizations identify gaps or potential areas for improvement in support of a positive Culture of Care. The framework is a tool that identifies five areas of focus for a Culture of Care: company values; strategic approach at establishment level; implementation structures; staff support; and animal care and procedures. The framework is intended as an aid for continuous improvement, highlighting where indicators of good practice are present. We expect it to provide points of reflection and ideas for those looking to implement a Culture of Care in a structured way, while facilitating a professional and strategic approach. To prevent it supporting a ‘tick-box’ exercise, the framework must not be used as an auditing tool, but as a starting point for consideration and discussion about how care manifests within the context and constraints of individual establishments.

The term Culture of Care, within the scientific community using laboratory animals, is being used more and more frequently after it was introduced in the EU Directive 2010/63/EU, where it is phrased as a ‘climate of care’, which became effective in national legislation from January 2013. However, there is a risk that the term could become a meaningless phrase if no agreed local definition of the term exists at the animal facility (called establishment in the EU Directive). This paper presents a comprehensive survey tool that provides a means to describe what the Culture of Care in an establishment looks like. The tool is one of the elements that can contribute to the overall picture of the culture; however, it cannot stand alone. Together with an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Culture of Care (e.g. key performance indicators) and a description of the outcomes and achievements in terms of animal welfare and the 3Rs (Replace, Reduce, Refine), the survey tool will constitute a comprehensive picture. The survey tool offers a multilevel and comprehensive view of different subcultures, presenting details on mindset and behaviour of the employees and the different relations within the culture, thus enabling the initiation of improvement projects if required. The tool addresses essential elements of a co-operative culture in terms of what we think, what we do and how we work together.

Simple Summary‘Culture of Care’ within animal research and testing refers to a commitment to improve animal welfare, the quality of the science, staff morale, and openness with the public. An effective Culture of Care should also promote the replacement of animal experiments with humane alternatives, reductions in animal numbers and suffering, and better welfare through the refinement of procedures, housing, husbandry and care (collectively known as the 3Rs). The Culture of Care is recognized as the foundation of humane and responsible science, but the concept should be applied in a meaningful way and not simply used as a ‘buzzword’. Recognizing this, some establishments have begun to define and assess their individual Culture of Care. This paper provides some examples of their approaches to surveying staff and external colleagues. It also sets out some suggestions for objective criteria for assessing the Culture of Care, and for indicators that capture progress with each of the 3Rs. The aim is to complement the growing literature on the Culture of Care and highlight some sources of information and inspiration to help establishments tailor their own assessments.AbstractWithin animal research and testing, the need for an effective Culture of Care is widely recognized and described in terms of an establishment-wide commitment to improving the implementation of the 3Rs, animal welfare, scientific quality, care of the staff, and transparency for all stakeholders, including the public. Ideally, each establishment would determine what the Culture of Care means for them, and be able to assess and potentially benchmark their own culture. Some establishments already do this, using various indicators and formal or informal assessments. This paper provides examples of these approaches to assessing the Culture of Care, including surveys and surrogate measures. Many currently-used criteria and indicators tend to be human-centric and subjective, and we suggest using further objective indicators and animal-centric, 3Rs-based criteria. It is preferable to consider each of the 3Rs separately when assessing culture, and some indicators are suggested to facilitate this. Several documents produced by regulators in the UK and European Union are good sources of objective indicators of a good Culture of Care. This concept paper aims to complement the literature on assessing the Culture of Care, providing ideas and sources of information to help identify relevant and measurable criteria.

No abstract

Introduction: Couple violence (CV) affects many, and the consequences of those actions are grave, not only for the individual suffering at the hand of the perpetrator but also for the other persons in the family. Violence often happens among more than just the adults within one family. Even if CV has been thoroughly investigated in the general population very few studies have investigated this objective on a clinical sample, and none of these have included family violence. Aim: This article identifies and describes the group of clients that have issues of physical couple and family violence. It analyses a model that can help to discover physical violence and help therapists to assess what actions to take in therapy to prevent further physical violence. Methodology: Descriptive analysis, t-tests, and structural equation modeling (SEM) are used on a sample of clients receiving couple and family therapy (CFT) in Norway (N = 830). Family violence is modeled by the partner's expectations toward each other, levels of anger, sexual satisfaction, and self-control. Results: One-in-five clients experienced physical CV in their current relationship and one-in-four experienced physical family violence. The group of clients who experienced CV differed from those without such experiences in having lower income, more prior experience with psychotherapy, more experience with alcohol abuse in childhood, and far more physical family violence in their current family. Our model predicting physical couple and family violence explained as much as 53% of family violence and had three positive, significant predictors (expectation, anger, and sexual satisfaction) and one, significant negative predictor (self-control). Somewhat unexpected, sexual satisfaction was a positive, and not a negative, predictor of violence. Conclusion: Our study identified one-in-four clients in CFT experience physical CV. Unreasonable expectation from one partner toward the other, anger and sexual satisfaction were positive predictors of physical violence, while self-control was found to be a negative predictor of physical violence. Implications for therapeutic work and the prevention of physical violence are discussed.