Veterinarian–Client Communication Skills: Current State, Relevance, and Opportunities for Improvement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communication is increasingly recognized as a core skill for veterinary practitioners, and in recent years, attention to communication competency and skills training has increased. To gain an up-to-date assessment of the current state of veterinary communication skills and training, we conducted a survey among veterinary practitioners in the United Kingdom and United States in 2012/2013. The questionnaire was used to assess the current state, relevance, and adequacy of veterinary communication skills among veterinary practitioners, to assess interest in further training, and to understand perceived challenges in communicating with clients. There was an overall response rate of 29.6% (1,774 of 6,000 recipients), with a higher response rate for UK-based practitioners (39.7%) than practitioners in the US (19.5%). Ninety-eight percent of respondents agreed that communication skills were as important as or more important than clinical knowledge. Forty-one percent of respondents had received formal veterinary communication skills training during veterinary school, and 47% had received training post-graduation. Thirty-five percent said their veterinary communication skills training during veterinary school prepared them well or very well for communicating with clients about the health of their pets, compared to 61% of those receiving post-graduate training. Forty percent said they would be interested in further veterinary communication skills training, with the preferred methods being simulated consultations and online training. While there has been increased emphasis on communication skills training during and after veterinary school, there is a need for more relevant and accessible training.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it