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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".