Prevalence and nature of cost discussions during clinical appointments 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 determine prevalence and nature of cost discussions between veterinarians and pet owners during clinical appointments in companion animal practice. DESIGN: Cross-sectional descriptive study. SAMPLE POPULATION: 20 veterinarians in companion animal practice in eastern Ontario and 350 clients and their pets. PROCEDURES: 200 veterinarian-client-patient interactions were randomly selected from all videotaped interactions and analyzed with the Roter interaction analysis system. Additional proficiency codes and blocking functions were developed to capture the prevalence, nature, and context of cost discussions. RESULTS: 58 of the 200 (29%) appointments that were analyzed included a discussion of cost. During 38 of these 58 (66%) appointments, the discussion involved costs associated with the veterinarian's time or with services provided by the veterinarian. Overall, reference to a written estimate was made during only 28 of the 200 (14%) appointments. Cost discussions were most common during appointments in which a decision related to diagnostic testing or dentistry was made. Appointments were significantly longer when a cost discussion was included than when it was not. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results of the present study suggested that discussions related to cost were relatively uncommon during clinical appointments in companion animal practice and that written estimates were infrequently used to aid these discussions. When discussions of cost did occur, veterinarians appeared to focus on explaining costs in terms of the veterinarian's time or services provided by the veterinarian, rather than on the medical information that could be obtained or the benefits to the future health or function of the pet.
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 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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