A focus group study of veterinarians' and pet owners' perceptions of veterinarian-client communication in companion animal practice
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
OBJECTIVE: To compare veterinarians' and pet owners' perceptions of client expectations with respect to veterinarian-client communication and to identify related barriers and challenges to communication. DESIGN: Qualitative study based on focus group interviews. PARTICIPANTS: 6 pet owner focus groups (32 owners) and 4 veterinarian focus groups (24 companion animal veterinarians). PROCEDURES: Independent focus group sessions were conducted with standardized open-ended questions and follow-up probes. Content analysis was performed on transcripts of the focus group discussions. RESULTS: Five themes related to veterinarian-client communication were identified: educating clients (ie, explaining important information, providing information up front, and providing information in various forms), providing choices (ie, providing pet owners with a range of options, being respectful of owners' decisions, and working in partnership with owners), using 2-way communication (ie, using language clients understand, listening to what clients have to say, and asking the right questions), breakdowns in communication that affected the client's experience (ie, owners feeling misinformed, that they had not been given all options, and that their concerns had not been heard), and challenges veterinarians encountered when communicating with clients (ie, monetary concerns, client misinformation, involvement of > 1 client, and time limitations). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggested that several factors are involved in providing effective veterinarian-client communication and that breakdowns in communication can have an adverse effect on the veterinarian-client relationship.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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