Evaluating shared decision‐making between companion animal veterinarians and their clients using the Observer OPTION <sup>5</sup> instrument
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background : Communication practices used by veterinarians can impact client's involvement in decision‐making. The objective of this study was to evaluate the level of client involvement in veterinary care decisions and factors impacting client involvement. Methods : A random sample of practising companion animal veterinarians and a convenience sample of pet owners were recruited. Each consultation was audio‐video recorded and analyzed using the Observer OPTION 5 instrument, adapted from human medicine, to assess veterinarians’ level of shared decision‐making. A mixed linear model was used to assess statistical associations between veterinarian, client and appointment‐level factors and OPTION 5 scores. Results : Sixty veterinarians and 909 of their clients were audio‐video recorded during a consultation, of which 717 interactions included a decision identified for analysis using the OPTION 5 instrument. Elements consistent with shared decision‐making were uncommon, with a mean OPTION 5 score of 22.6 (median = 20.0; sd = 13.05; range = 0–75) out of 100. OPTION 5 scores were positively associated with the length of the appointment and negatively associated with the veterinarian's years in practice when controlling for statistical interaction between client income and appointment type. Conclusion : Findings suggest an opportunity exists for veterinarians to incorporate more client involvement through increased use of shared decisionmaking behaviours during veterinary consultations.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".