Implications of a Novel Method for Analyzing Communication in Routine Veterinary Patient Visits for Veterinary Research and Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The patient-centered clinical method (PCCM), a model developed to characterize communication during patient-physician visits in the 1980s, identifies elements of patient-orientated, physician-orientated, and shared dialogue during the encounter. The model also includes elements that reflect the emotional aspects of these interactions, recognizing expressions of feelings and exchanges related to both personal and medical interests. Fifty-five routine veterinary patient visits in the United Kingdom and United States were analyzed using the novel application of a PCCM adapted for veterinary patient visits. The patient visits were video recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed for frequency and proportion of PCCM elements observed. Elements representing the greatest proportion of patient visits were related to gathering information and shared decision making. Those representing the smallest proportion were related to signs of the presenting condition and effects of the condition on the clients' lives. Dialogue during the patient visits flowed iteratively and back and forth between the veterinarian and the client perspective. The findings suggest that patient visits are focused more on gathering information and planning rather than exploring effects of the health problem on the client's life, and that patient visits flow very iteratively and randomly between veterinarian and client perspectives. Both of these topics should be studied further and given emphasis in the way that communication models are developed and taught in order to enhance client-centeredness in veterinary patient visits.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".