On-site communication skills education increases client-centered communication in four companion animal practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate veterinarian-client communication before and after a 15-month on-site communication skills training intervention. PROCEDURES: Multipractice, pretest-posttest intervention study. SAMPLE: A convenience sample of 4 companion animal practices owned by a single practice group in Austin, Texas (n = 9 veterinarians; 170 audio recordings). RESULTS: After intervention, visits were 8 minutes longer (P = .005), and veterinarians' client-centered scores increased significantly (2.30 vs 2.72; P = .006). Veterinarians' biomedical questions decreased by nearly a third (P = .0007), while veterinarians' facilitation (ie, partnership-building) statements were 1.15 times as great (P = .04) after intervention due to an increase in asking for the client's opinion (P = .03) and use of back-channel statements (P = .01). Agenda-setting skills, including agenda-setting questions (P = .009), summary of the client's agenda (P = < .0001), and a check for remaining concerns (P = .013), increased significantly after intervention. Clients asked 1.9 times as many lifestyle-social related questions (P = .02) and provided 1.3 times as much lifestyle-social information (P = .0004) after the intervention. Additionally, clients offered 1.4 times as many emotion-handling statements (P = .0001), including showing concern (P = .03) and optimism, reassurance, or encouragement (P < .0001), after intervention. Paraverbally, clients presented as more anxious/nervous (P = .03) and emotionally distressed/upset (P = .02) after the intervention. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that client-centered communication skills increased after intervention. This study builds upon previous case-based studies examining practice-based communication training, emphasizing that long-term interventions positively enhance veterinarian-client communication, which is likely to have a positive impact on client and patient care.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".