Online survey to determine client perceptions of feline chronic lower airway disease management: response to therapy, side effects and challenges encountered
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The first aim of this survey was to report client experiences associated with the administration of common medications, particularly glucocorticoids and bronchodilators, in managing cats with feline lower airway disease (FLAD). The second aim was to ascertain client perception of response to treatment and level of satisfaction. Methods This was a prospective cross-sectional study. An online survey was distributed worldwide to cat owners caring for cats with a chronic cough. Only cats reported to have FLAD were included. Results A total of 153 complete responses describing cats with FLAD were analyzed. Glucocorticoids and bronchodilators were the predominantly prescribed therapeutics for 140/153 (92%) and 80/153 (52%) of FLAD cats, respectively. Oral and inhalant administration routes were reported most commonly: glucocorticoids (64% oral and 75% inhalant) and bronchodilators (21% oral and 88% inhalant). A review of how air quality could be improved was conducted for 54% of cats. Almost half (43%) of owners reported adverse effects secondary to glucocorticoid administration, the most frequent being polyphagia (26%) and polydipsia (21%). Only 10% of owners reported bronchodilator-associated side effects, with restlessness (9%) being the most common. Difficulties giving glucocorticoid or bronchodilator tablets orally were reported for 33% and 71% of owners, respectively. Glucocorticoid or bronchodilator inhalant therapies were difficult to administer for 28% and 31% of owners, respectively. Frequency and severity of coughing were significantly lower after at least 2 months of treatment, with median numerical input on a slider scale (0–100) of 48 and 42 before, and 10 and 7 after treatment, respectively ( P <0.0001). Median numerical input of owner satisfaction was 83%. Conclusions and relevance Despite significant improvements in client-reported responses to treatment, challenges associated with the administration of medications and their adverse effects still exist. Promoting awareness of client experiences can facilitate appropriate follow-up, guidance and empathy to further optimize outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".