Effects of a Pilot Training Program on Veterinary Students' Pain Knowledge, Attitude, and Assessment Skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevention and management of pain is fundamental to the practice of both human and veterinary medicine. The recognition and treatment of pain represents an important indicator of the quality of care delivered in human hospitals and veterinary hospitals. Yet, both human and veterinary health care professionals have cited inadequate knowledge as a significant barrier to effective pain management. The aims of this pilot study were twofold: (1) to gauge veterinary medical students' current attitudes regarding their training in pain management and (2) to assess the impact of training and practice on the use of a canine acute pain assessment teaching tool. Participants, third-year professional veterinary medical students, completed a 16-item survey questionnaire before a 30-minute training session on pain assessment using the teaching tool and completed it again after training and a one-week practice period. Questions related to canine pain, assessment of canine pain, pain management education in the professional veterinary curriculum, and an example case presentation (video) were included in the survey. The analysis of survey results indicated that professional veterinary medicine students find value in didactic and clinical training in canine pain assessment. Additionally, use of the canine acute pain teaching tool in conjunction with a training program improved students' knowledge and skill in assessment while pointing out the importance of further training. Differences with regard to gender and tracking were found and warrant further exploration.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".