ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine
Client's understanding of instructions for small animals in a veterinary neurological referral center.
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utility of ChatGPT in generating accurate client handouts for common veterinary internal medicine diseases.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2026Article
- Factors Associated with Medication Noncompliance in Dogs in New Zealand.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Client's understanding of instructions for small animals in a veterinary neurological referral center.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is not known how much information clients retrieve from discharge instructions.
objectiveTo investigate client's understanding of discharge instructions and influencing factors. ANIMALS: Dogs and cats being hospitalized for neurological diseases.
methodsClients were presented questionnaires regarding their pet's disease, diagnostics, treatments, prognosis and discharge instructions at time of discharge and 2 weeks later. The same questions were answered by discharging veterinarians at time of discharge. Clients answered additional questions regarding the subjective feelings during discharge conversation. Data collected included: data describing discharging veterinarian (age, gender, years of clinical experience, specialist status), data describing the client (age, gender, educational status). Raw percentage of agreement (RPA) between answers of clinicians and clients as well as factors potentially influencing the RPA were evaluated.
resultsOf 230 clients being approached 151 (65.7%) and 70 (30.4%) clients responded to the first and second questionnaire, respectively (130 dog and 30 cat owners). The general RPA between clinician's and client's responses over all questions together was 68.9% and 66.8% at the 2 time points. Questions regarding adverse effects of medication (29.0%), residual clinical signs (35.8%), and confinement instructions (36.8%) had the lowest RPAs at the first time point. The age of clients (P = .008) negatively influenced RPAs, with clients older than 50 years having lower RPA. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Clients can only partially reproduce information provided at discharge. Only clients' increasing age influenced recall of information. Instructions deemed to be important should be specifically stressed during discharge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.