An exploration of information exchange and decision-making within veterinarian-client-patient interactions during companion animal visits
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Information exchange and decision-making support positive healthcare outcomes. Focus group, questionnaire-based and observational research methodologies were used to investigate these important aspects of communication for companion animal veterinary practice. Pet owner expectations and veterinarians’ perceptions of pet owner expectations regarding information exchange and decision-making, along with communication challenges veterinarians face, were explored using 5 focus groups of pet owners (n=27) and 3 of veterinarians (n=24). Inductive thematic analysis of focus groups identified two themes: information exchange and decision-making. Subthemes of information exchange included understanding the client and providing information suitable for the client. Decision-making was seen by pet owners as an opportunity to be involved in their pets’ veterinary care decisions. Veterinarian-specific barriers were time constraints, involvement of multiple clients and language barriers. Audio-video recorded veterinary appointments (n=714) involving 60 veterinarians were assessed using the OPTION5 instrument to quantify client involvement in veterinary care decisions. Veterinarians’ mean score was 22.6 out of 100, indicating low use of client-involving behaviours. Veterinarians with fewer years in practice and increased appointment length were associated with higher levels of shared decision-making when controlling for a significant interaction between client household income and appointment type. Questionnaires were used to assess veterinarians’ (n=416) and veterinary clients’ (n=529) perceptions of information exchanged about pets’ blood tests. Significant differences were found between the perceptions of participating veterinarians and clients regarding the frequency with which veterinarians educated clients about characteristics of their pets’ blood tests. A mixed methods study was conducted to explore and identify characteristics associated with companion animal veterinarians’ communication of health parameter trends. Focus groups explored pet owners and veterinarians’ perceptions of veterinarians’ communication of health parameter trends and codes were identified. Audio-video recorded veterinary appointments (n=911) were analyzed using the focus group codes to assess the prevalence and nature of these conversations in practice. Fewer than 10% (76/911) of appointments included any mention of a health parameter trend; of those that did, the majority discussed body weight. This thesis contributed to the understanding of veterinarian-client-patient interactions regarding decision-making and identifies opportunities to improve client engagement in veterinary care by enhancing understanding of information exchange.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».