TY - JOUR
T1 - Veterinarian-client-patient communication patterns used during clinical appointments in companion animal practice
AU - Shaw, Jane R.
AU - Bonnett, Brenda N.
AU - Adams, Cindy L.
AU - Roter, Debra L.
PY - 2006/3/1
Y1 - 2006/3/1
N2 - Objective - To identify communication patterns used by veterinarians during clinical appointments in companion animal practice. Design - Cross-sectional descriptive study. Sample Population - A random sample of 50 companion animal practitioners in southern Ontario and a convenience sample of 300 clients and their pets. Procedure - For each practitioner, 6 clinical appointments (3 wellness appointments and 3 appointments related to a health problem) were videotaped. The Roter interaction analysis system was used to analyze the resulting 300 videotapes, and cluster analysis was used to identify veterinarian communication patterns. Results - 175 (58%) appointments were classified as having a biomedical communication pattern, and 125 (42%) were classified as having a biolifestyle-social communication pattern. None were classified as having a consumerist communication pattern. Twenty-three (46%) veterinarians were classified as using a predominantly biomedical communication pattern, 19 (38%) were classified as using a mixed communication pattern, and 8 (16%) were classified as using a predominantly biolifestyle-social communication pattern. Pattern use was related to the type of appointment. Overall, 103 (69%) wellness appointments were classified as biolifestyle-social and 127 (85%) problem appointments were classified as biomedical. Appointments with a biomedical communication pattern (mean, 11.98 minutes) were significantly longer than appointments with a biolifestyle-social communication pattern (10.43 minutes). Median relationship-centered care score (ie, the ratio of client-centered talk to veterinarian-centered talk) was significantly higher during appointments with a biolifestyle-social communication pattern (1.10) than during appointments with a biomedical communication pattern (0.40). Conclusions and Clinical Relevance - Results suggest that veterinarians in companion animal practice use 2 distinct patterns of communication. Communication pattern was associated with duration of visit, type of appointment, and relationship-centeredness. Recognition of these communication patterns has implications for veterinary training and client and patient outcomes.
AB - Objective - To identify communication patterns used by veterinarians during clinical appointments in companion animal practice. Design - Cross-sectional descriptive study. Sample Population - A random sample of 50 companion animal practitioners in southern Ontario and a convenience sample of 300 clients and their pets. Procedure - For each practitioner, 6 clinical appointments (3 wellness appointments and 3 appointments related to a health problem) were videotaped. The Roter interaction analysis system was used to analyze the resulting 300 videotapes, and cluster analysis was used to identify veterinarian communication patterns. Results - 175 (58%) appointments were classified as having a biomedical communication pattern, and 125 (42%) were classified as having a biolifestyle-social communication pattern. None were classified as having a consumerist communication pattern. Twenty-three (46%) veterinarians were classified as using a predominantly biomedical communication pattern, 19 (38%) were classified as using a mixed communication pattern, and 8 (16%) were classified as using a predominantly biolifestyle-social communication pattern. Pattern use was related to the type of appointment. Overall, 103 (69%) wellness appointments were classified as biolifestyle-social and 127 (85%) problem appointments were classified as biomedical. Appointments with a biomedical communication pattern (mean, 11.98 minutes) were significantly longer than appointments with a biolifestyle-social communication pattern (10.43 minutes). Median relationship-centered care score (ie, the ratio of client-centered talk to veterinarian-centered talk) was significantly higher during appointments with a biolifestyle-social communication pattern (1.10) than during appointments with a biomedical communication pattern (0.40). Conclusions and Clinical Relevance - Results suggest that veterinarians in companion animal practice use 2 distinct patterns of communication. Communication pattern was associated with duration of visit, type of appointment, and relationship-centeredness. Recognition of these communication patterns has implications for veterinary training and client and patient outcomes.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33644796945&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33644796945&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2460/javma.228.5.714
DO - 10.2460/javma.228.5.714
M3 - Article
C2 - 16506932
AN - SCOPUS:33644796945
SN - 0003-1488
VL - 228
SP - 714
EP - 721
JO - Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
JF - Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
IS - 5
ER -