Dog Owners’ Perceptions of the Convenience and Value of Chewable Oclacitinib: Quantitative Survey Data from an International Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oclacitinib is an oral therapy indicated for pruritus associated with allergic or atopic dermatitis in dogs. This study sought to assess pet owners’ perceptions of the relative convenience and value of the conventional film-coated formulation and the chewable formulation. A quantitative discrete-choice experimental methodology was applied, comparing (conventional, film-coated) oclacitinib versus chewable oclacitinib using unbranded treatment profiles. Initially, a qualitative interview phase with pet owners and veterinarians was conducted to develop detailed treatment profiles. Subsequently, pet owners participated in a quantitative survey. Overall, 1590 pet owners provided survey responses. Most respondents (62%) reported having experienced challenges administering tablet-based therapies to their dog(s). Half of all respondents (52%) had experience administering flavoured or chewable tablets to their dog. Comparing oclacitinib and chewable oclacitinib (with or without associated costs), the majority of the respondents preferred the chewable formulation in all regions across short-term and long-term scenarios (≥58%; all p < 0.05). The current research is one of few survey-driven studies for treatment preferences in companion animal medicine. Veterinarians may offer chewable or palatable treatment options where available, with potential positive impacts on convenience, compliance, outcomes, quality of life, and the human–animal bond.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".