Companion animal veterinarians’ and veterinary clients’ perceptions of information exchanged while communicating about blood tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blood tests play a vital role in veterinary medicine, as they enable veterinarians to make decisions about their patients' medical care and provide opportunities to engage clients in veterinary care. The objective of this study was to explore perspectives of veterinary clients and veterinarians on current reporting practices for blood tests ordered in companion animal practice. The type of information communicated and client information seeking behaviours were examined. METHODS: Two online surveys were distributed using snowball sampling: one targeting veterinary clients and one targeting veterinarians. RESULTS: In total, 529 veterinary client and 416 veterinarian surveys were included in analyses. Significant differences were found between what blood test information veterinarian respondents felt they provided clients and what client respondents perceived they received with regard to their pet's blood tests. Almost 60% of clients somewhat or strongly agreed that they search the Internet if they do not understand why a test was ordered or what the results mean. Half of clients reported that they never receive a written report of their pet's blood work, 81% of whom were interested in receiving a copy. CONCLUSION: Results of this research demonstrate opportunities to improve veterinarians' and clients' communication about blood tests.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".