Comparison of veterinarian and standardized client perceptions of communication during euthanasia discussions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe client and veterinarian perceptions of client-centeredness during euthanasia discussions and assess agreement between measures of these perceptions. DESIGN: Descriptive study. SAMPLE: Stratified random sample of 32 companion animal veterinarians in southern Ontario. PROCEDURES: 2 case scenarios (a geriatric dog with worsening arthritis and a cat with inappropriate urination) designed to initiate euthanasia discussions were presented by 2 different undisclosed standardized clients (USCs) to study veterinarian communication during clinical visits. At the end of appointments, the USC's identity was disclosed, and questionnaires to measure veterinarian and client perceptions of client-centeredness were completed. Agreement was assessed by statistical methods. RESULTS: Data were analyzed from 60 appointments (30/scenario). Of 10 questions, significant agreement was found between veterinarians and USCs for only 1 (extent to which relevant personal and family issues were discussed; κ = 0.43) for the dog scenario and 3 (extent of discussion of respective roles [κ = 0.43], better preparedness of the USC to make a euthanasia decision [κ = 0.42], and discussion of relevant personal and family issues [κ = 0.25]) for the cat scenario. When the USC and veterinarian disagreed, the veterinarian perceived that the client-centeredness components were addressed more thoroughly than did the USC. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Lack of agreement was found between USC and veterinarian perceptions, with USCs perceiving less client-centeredness in euthanasia discussions. This communication gap suggested the need for training of veterinarians in eliciting client perspectives and assessing lifestyle-social information, including client social support systems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".