Katie Hall, Betsy Matos, Anne Dombroski-Brokman, Steven Ziegenfuss
{"title":"美国高等院校的生物安全 2 级培训计划。","authors":"Katie Hall, Betsy Matos, Anne Dombroski-Brokman, Steven Ziegenfuss","doi":"10.1089/apb.2024.0024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Biosafety Level 2 (BSL-2) training programs were benchmarked at institutions of higher learning in the United States by surveying Biosafety Officers (BSOs). The goal of this survey was to not only compare Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) requirements for BSL-2 training but also compare delivery format, length of training, inclusion of a hands-on or interactive component, and requirement for refresher training.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Survey subjects were drawn from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) registry of BSOs and were limited to BSOs at institutions of higher learning in the United States. Twelve survey questions were developed in this study. The survey was sent to 324 BSOs, of which 108 responded with sufficient data to be included in the analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survey found that BSL-2 training is required by the institutional and/or IBC policy at 88% of institutions, is optional at 5.6%, and not offered at 6.5%. More than half of the respondents (60.4%) offered BSL-2 training in an on-demand manner. Some institutions (34.5%) include a component of training that is in person. However, this training does not always include hands-on exercises or interactive activities. The survey indicated that most (96.6%) institutions offered BSL-2 training less than three hours in length, and many (58%) institutions required refresher training.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most institutions of higher learning in the United States, which are registered with the NIH, require BSL-2 training for laboratory personnel involved in research and teaching.</p>","PeriodicalId":7962,"journal":{"name":"Applied Biosafety","volume":"30 1","pages":"36-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11937789/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Biosafety Level 2 Training Programs at Institutions of Higher Learning in the United States.\",\"authors\":\"Katie Hall, Betsy Matos, Anne Dombroski-Brokman, Steven Ziegenfuss\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/apb.2024.0024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Biosafety Level 2 (BSL-2) training programs were benchmarked at institutions of higher learning in the United States by surveying Biosafety Officers (BSOs). The goal of this survey was to not only compare Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) requirements for BSL-2 training but also compare delivery format, length of training, inclusion of a hands-on or interactive component, and requirement for refresher training.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Survey subjects were drawn from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) registry of BSOs and were limited to BSOs at institutions of higher learning in the United States. Twelve survey questions were developed in this study. The survey was sent to 324 BSOs, of which 108 responded with sufficient data to be included in the analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survey found that BSL-2 training is required by the institutional and/or IBC policy at 88% of institutions, is optional at 5.6%, and not offered at 6.5%. More than half of the respondents (60.4%) offered BSL-2 training in an on-demand manner. Some institutions (34.5%) include a component of training that is in person. However, this training does not always include hands-on exercises or interactive activities. The survey indicated that most (96.6%) institutions offered BSL-2 training less than three hours in length, and many (58%) institutions required refresher training.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most institutions of higher learning in the United States, which are registered with the NIH, require BSL-2 training for laboratory personnel involved in research and teaching.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7962,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Biosafety\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"36-44\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11937789/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Biosafety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/apb.2024.0024\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Biosafety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/apb.2024.0024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Biosafety Level 2 Training Programs at Institutions of Higher Learning in the United States.
Introduction: Biosafety Level 2 (BSL-2) training programs were benchmarked at institutions of higher learning in the United States by surveying Biosafety Officers (BSOs). The goal of this survey was to not only compare Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) requirements for BSL-2 training but also compare delivery format, length of training, inclusion of a hands-on or interactive component, and requirement for refresher training.
Methods: Survey subjects were drawn from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) registry of BSOs and were limited to BSOs at institutions of higher learning in the United States. Twelve survey questions were developed in this study. The survey was sent to 324 BSOs, of which 108 responded with sufficient data to be included in the analysis.
Results: The survey found that BSL-2 training is required by the institutional and/or IBC policy at 88% of institutions, is optional at 5.6%, and not offered at 6.5%. More than half of the respondents (60.4%) offered BSL-2 training in an on-demand manner. Some institutions (34.5%) include a component of training that is in person. However, this training does not always include hands-on exercises or interactive activities. The survey indicated that most (96.6%) institutions offered BSL-2 training less than three hours in length, and many (58%) institutions required refresher training.
Conclusions: Most institutions of higher learning in the United States, which are registered with the NIH, require BSL-2 training for laboratory personnel involved in research and teaching.
Applied BiosafetyEnvironmental Science-Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
13.30%
发文量
27
期刊介绍:
Applied Biosafety (APB), sponsored by ABSA International, is a peer-reviewed, scientific journal committed to promoting global biosafety awareness and best practices to prevent occupational exposures and adverse environmental impacts related to biohazardous releases. APB provides a forum for exchanging sound biosafety and biosecurity initiatives by publishing original articles, review articles, letters to the editors, commentaries, and brief reviews. APB informs scientists, safety professionals, policymakers, engineers, architects, and governmental organizations. The journal is committed to publishing on topics significant in well-resourced countries as well as information relevant to underserved regions, engaging and cultivating the development of biosafety professionals globally.