Companion animal preventive care at a veterinary teaching hospital - Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of clients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preventive care is the cornerstone of health. However, veterinary staff to client (pet owner) communication of disease prevention may be limited resulting in increased pet risk. Our objectives were to evaluate knowledge, attitudes, and practices of clients regarding vaccination and parasite control and describe information sources influencing client preventive care. Over a 6-week period, clients visiting a veterinary teaching hospital in Prince Edward Island, Canada, were invited to complete a written questionnaire. Of those invited, 81% (105/129) completed the questionnaire. Respondents reported low (19 to 33%) to moderate (66 to 79%) coverage for canine "lifestyle" and core vaccines, respectively. Half of the participants reported that they had concern for their pet's health from endo/ectoparasites compared to concern for their/household member's health (27%), despite 45% reporting a person at increased zoonotic risk in their household. Veterinarians (89 to 92%) and online information (39 to 51%) were the highest client-reported resources for vaccine and parasite education. Our work provides a baseline for preventive care practices and highlights a need for improvement.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".