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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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”
From 2021 AAHA Nutrition and Weight Management Guidelines for Dogs and Cats (2021) · cites this paper as [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
Meta-analysis of correlates of provider behavior in medical encounters
Hall, J. A., Roter, D. L., & Katz, N. R. (1988) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-198807000-00002 · Cited by 1,069
Communication Patterns of Primary Care Physicians
Roter, D. L. (1997) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03540280088045 · Cited by 939
Patient non-compliance: Deviance or reasoned decision-making?
Donovan, J. L., & Blake, D. R. (1992) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/0277-9536(92)90206-6 · Cited by 785
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Nelson, 1998, Public awareness of rabies and compliance with pet vaccination laws in Connecticut, 1993, 212, 1552
Cited by
Sorted by citations
2021 AAHA Nutrition and Weight Management Guidelines for Dogs and Cats
Cline, M. G., Burns, K. M., Coe, J. B., Downing, R., Durzi, T., Murphy, M., & Parker, V. (2021) · Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association · doi:10.5326/jaaha-ms-7232 · Cited by 107
Self-citation
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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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