Veterinary Students Underestimate Cat and Dog Owner Adherence and Knowledge Regarding Antimicrobial Use and Resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore students’ perceptions related to cat and dog owners’ (a) knowledge of antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance, (b) expectations and preferences related to antibiotic use, and (c) preferences and experiences related to veterinarian–client communication preferences and experiences. This project compared students’ responses to those provided by cat and dog owners in a previous study. Because that prior research suggested that students’ perceptions can shift over time, we also explored whether progression throughout the DVM curriculum impacted students’ views of cat and dog owners. DVM students ( n = 584) from seven schools in the Southeastern Veterinary Education Consortium completed an online survey based on prior research of cat and dog owner behavior and preferences. Results indicate that DVM students overestimate cat and dog owner's expectations for antibiotics and underestimate cat and dog owners’ adherence to veterinary directions for antibiotic use. Similarly, fewer DVM students than cat and dog owners agreed that veterinary communication about antibiotics, their side effects, and their cost occurs during visits with a sick pet. Where significant, more students in later DVM class years had a positive view about client knowledge/adherence and veterinary communication. This lack of confidence in clients’ knowledge and competence and in the quality of veterinarian–client communication indicates a need to educate students on their perceptions of veterinary–client communications, as well as reinforcing that clients generally listen and trust veterinarians’ recommendations regarding antimicrobial prescribing and stewardship.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".