Cited by 157Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareVeterinary Practice and Education StudiesCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of veterinarian-client-patient interactions on client adherence to dentistry and surgery recommendations in companion-animal practice

Open access
Kanji, Noureen, Coe, Jason B., Adams, Cindy L., Shaw, Jane R.·2012·Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association

Abstract

Objective—To explore the relationship between veterinarian-client-patient interactions and client adherence to dental and surgery recommendations and to test the a priori hypotheses that appointment-specific client satisfaction and relationship-centered care are positively associated with client adherence. Design—Cross-sectional study. Sample—A subsample of 19 companion-animal veterinarians and 83 clients from a larger observational study consisting of 20 randomly recruited veterinarians and a convenience sample of 350 clients from eastern Ontario. Procedures—Videotaped veterinarian-client-patient interactions containing a dentistry recommendation, surgery recommendation, or both were selected for inclusion from the larger sample of interactions coded with the Roter interaction analysis system. Client adherence was measured by evaluating each patient's medical record approximately 6 months after the videotaped interaction. The clarity of the recommendation, appointment-specific client-satisfaction score, and relationship-centered care score were compared between adhering and nonadhering clients. Results—Among the 83 veterinarian-client-patient interactions, 25 (30%) clients adhered to a dentistry recommendation, surgery recommendation, or both. The odds for adherence were 7 times as great for clients who received a clear recommendation, compared with clients who received an ambiguous recommendation from their veterinarian. Moreover, adhering clients were significantly more satisfied as measured after the interview. Interactions resulting in client adherence also had higher scores for relationship-centered care than did interactions leading to nonadherence. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Veterinarian use of a relationship-centered care approach, characterized as a collaborative partnership between a veterinarian and a client with provision of clear recommendations and effective communication of the rationale for the recommendations, has positive implications for client adherence.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2460/javma.240.4.427

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Clients who were provided with a clear recommendation were seven times more likely to adhere than clients receiving an ambiguous recommendation.

    “clients who were provided with a clear recommendation were seven times more likely to adhere than clients receiving an ambiguous recommendation.81”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Nelson, 1998, Public awareness of rabies and compliance with pet vaccination laws in Connecticut, 1993, 212, 1552

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kanji, N., Coe, J. B., Adams, C. L., & Shaw, J. R.
Affiliations
Ontario Veterinary College (CA)
Venue
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
Published
2012-02-15
Volume
240
Issue
4
Pages
427-436
ISSN
0003-1488 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2103021777
Cited by
157
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
9.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Veterinary Practice and Education Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
Keywords
companion animals, veterinary dentistry, veterinary surgery, relationship-centered care, client satisfaction, Roter Interaction Analysis System
MeSH terms
Animals, Animals, Domestic, Communication, Cross-Sectional Studies, Dentistry, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Ontario, Patient Participation, Surgery, Veterinary, Time Factors, Videotape Recording, Patient Satisfaction, Veterinarians

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review