Veterinary clients prefer benefit-focused online communication while clinic websites uncommonly communicate benefits of preventive care services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore client preferences for how value is communicated via written means and to assess the consistency of this preference with how veterinary clinic websites present this information for preventive care services. METHODS: First, a questionnaire was developed to assess clients' preference between 2 researcher-developed paragraphs recommending senior pet screening (one focused on the function of screening, the other on pet benefits of screening) and distributed from August 17 to November 2, 2023. Second, veterinary clinic websites were retrieved with a search engine using predefined search phrases related to 4 preventive care topics (flea and tick prevention, heartworm prevention, dental cleaning, and senior bloodwork). Each website was coded for the frequency of 4 codes related to how the value of the preventive care service was communicated (feature, function, pet benefit, or client benefit). RESULTS: From the questionnaire, 58.0% (166/286) of participants preferred the benefit-focused communication. Those who saw the benefit-focused paragraph were more likely to indicate being "extremely likely" to discuss senior pet screening with a veterinarian. Of the 128 website pages coded, the mean text percentages for each code were 13.3% feature, 10.5% function, 6.4% pet benefit, and 1.0% client benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that opportunities exist to increase communication of the benefits of veterinary care on veterinary clinic websites, which may align more with clients' preferences. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Through online communication, veterinary professionals may have an opportunity to increase client engagement with preventive care services by emphasizing the benefits of preventive care services in addition to the function.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".