Assessing owners' readiness to change their behaviour to address their companion animal's obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Owner behaviour change in relation to management is critical for successful pet weight loss. The stages of change (SOC) can be used to conceptualise the process of intentional behaviour change. Clients may be more likely to make successful changes when practitioners use communication techniques appropriate for a client's current stage. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to assess pet owners' SOC in relation to managing the weight of their overweight or obese pet. METHODS: An online questionnaire targeting dog and cat owners was distributed via snowball sampling. A total of 532 questionnaires were included in the analysis. Of these, 153 participants (28.8%) self-identified their pet's body condition score (BCS) as greater than 5 (on a nine-point scale). An adapted University of Rhode Island Change Assessment scale was completed by 119 of these participants (77.8%) to assess their readiness to change related to managing their overweight or obese pet. RESULTS: Most participants were scored in the precontemplation (52.1%) and contemplation (42%) stages, where readiness to change is low. Owner assessments likely resulted in underestimation of pets' BCS. CONCLUSION: The results offer preliminary insight into the SOC of owners who identify their pets as overweight or obese. Developing tools to assess and understand owners' readiness to change may be useful in informing veterinary professionals' communication approaches when engaging in weight management conversations.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".