Clients and Veterinarians as Partners in Problem Solving during Cancer Management: Implications for Veterinary Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research explores client satisfaction with veterinarian interactions and support during cancer management. Ninety-four members of the online Pet Cancer Support group completed the electronic communication and support questionnaire. Results show that 77% of respondents (n=72) are satisfied with their veterinarian; 71% (n=67) are satisfied with the information their veterinarian provides about treatment options; and 70% percent (n=66) are satisfied with the support they receive from their veterinarian. Strong, positive correlations exist between level of satisfaction and information about treatment options (rs=.795, n=91, p<.001) and between level of satisfaction and support received from the veterinarian (rs=.759, n=90, p<.001). Problem-focused informational support and tangible support dominated clients' descriptions of support and affected their support satisfaction. Emotion-focused support was not as important, and in some cases was not expected of the veterinarian. Results suggested that clients' overall satisfaction with their veterinarian is related to their satisfaction with information about treatment options and satisfaction with the support the veterinarian provides. By providing problem-focused support, veterinarians can empower clients and enhance their sense of control, thus positively affecting satisfaction and the likelihood of a long-lasting relationship. Taken together, these findings have implications for our understanding of veterinarian-client communication related to relationship-centered care and client empowerment, as well as implications for veterinary medical education and communication curricula.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".