Fig 1.
Developing the coding manual with an iterative process.
Graphic outlines the formation of the coding manual and the process of coding the responses to each qualitative survey question category. One researcher performed each of these four steps and created the coding manual, and a secondary researcher helped to refine the manual and assisted with coding ambiguous responses.
Fig 2.
Coding manual analysis terms and organization.
Graphic outlining the composition of the coding manual for each survey question. Each qualitative question category has its own coding manual that consists of multiple general themes, and each theme has multiple, more specific subthemes. Each theme and subtheme had a definition, distinct key words and example quotes to assist with its understanding. The right side of the graphic contains an example using one of the qualitative survey questions.
Table 1.
Demographic and work information for study participants (N = 261).
Table 2.
Number of mouse cages.
Fig 3.
Handling methods for individuals and institutions: Few institutions or individuals use only refined methods to handle mice.
Laboratory animal personnel were asked to report the approved methods used to handle mice on behalf of their institution (n = 103) and the methods used by themselves personally (n = 215).
Table 3.
Association between institutional refined handling practices, intentions, and explanatory factors.
Fig 4.
Beliefs about refined handling.
Laboratory animal personnel were asked to report their beliefs about refined handling on behalf of their institution (n = 93) and for themselves personally (n = 189). All scales were developed from the Theory of Planned Behavior which included intention to implement refined handling in the next year and beliefs about the consequences of (attitudes), professional pressures of (subjective norms), and control over (control / self-efficacy) implementing refined handling. The mean +/- standard error is reported.
Table 4.
Association between individual refined handling practices, intentions, and explanatory factors.
Fig 5.
Participant knowledge of refined handling.
This graph displays the percentage of participants who answered the knowledge quiz (n = 194) and chose the correct answer (based on peer-reviewed literature) to a series of true or false questions. The exact question wording is listed in the figure with the correct answer shown in paratheses.
Fig 6.
Barriers to using refined handling were most commonly time, personnel, mice, and research.
Bar graph displays the percentage of respondents whose response contained at least one of the six most prevalent themes to the “Barriers” qualitative survey question (“What factors or circumstances, if any, make it difficult or impossible for you/your institution to use non-aversive handling to pick up mice?”). Left bars indicate responses to individual level survey question (n = 181), right bars indicate responses to institutional level survey question (n = 173).
Fig 7.
Advantages to using refined handling.
Bar graph displays the percentage of respondents whose response contained at least one of the four most prevalent themes to the “Advantages” qualitative survey question (“What do you believe are the advantages, if any, for you/your institution to using non-aversive handling to pick up mice). Left bars indicate individual-level responses (n = 179), right bars indicate institutional-level responses (n = 175).
Fig 8.
Exceptions to using refined handling were related to mice, examinations, safety, and personnel.
Bar graph displays the percentage of respondents whose response contained at least one of the four most prevalent themes to the “Exceptions” qualitative survey question (“What, if any, are [the approved] instances/exceptions [for you] to NOT use non-aversive handling to pick up mice?”). Left bars indicate individual-level responses (n = 131), and right bars indicate institutional-level responses (n = 69).
Fig 9.
Enablers to using refined handling were related to personnel, mice, materials, research, and time.
Bar graph displays the percentage of respondents (n = 81) whose response contained at least one of the five most prevalent themes to the “Enablers” qualitative survey question (“What is the single most important factor that has enabled your institution to adopt non-aversive handling methods?”).