Veterinary Students Acknowledge the Importance of Competent Communication to Enhance Client Adherence to Antimicrobial Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adherence to antimicrobial recommendations varies and is influenced by client-veterinarian communication, making adequate training related to communication and antimicrobial stewardship especially important for veterinary students. Prior research suggests that veterinary medical students underestimate clients' antimicrobial knowledge and adherence to instructions, as well as veterinarians' communication competence. These perceptions could impact future interactions with clients, including recommendations for treatment. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore students' perceptions of client knowledge and adherence. Eleven focus groups were conducted with 33 veterinary students across all years of the curriculum to learn more about their perceptions of the efficacy of veterinary communication related to antibiotics and client adherence to instructions for antibiotic use. Results from this research show that students acknowledge the importance of communication to adherence, and this is especially important when engaging clients in discussion of antibiotics. More specifically, analysis of the transcripts revealed five main themes: the importance of client education and health literacy, navigating client expectations, barriers and enablers to client adherence, navigating generational differences among colleagues and clients, and the importance and impact of role modeling in the clinical setting. Results of this research have implications for training the next generation of veterinarians to confidently communicate about antibiotics, enhance client adherence, and increase the likelihood of positive patient outcomes.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".