ArticlePloS one2026
Exploring veterinarians' perceptions of decision-making with clients in the context of providing access to veterinary care.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Student Perceptions of Fee Policies in Veterinary Medicine: An Ethical and Professional Identity Framework.Veterinary sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Veterinarian-client decision-making and its role in improving accessibility of veterinary care for all pets is an emerging topic in the veterinary field. The objective of the present study was to understand veterinarians' perceptions and experiences engaging in decision-making with clients in the context of providing access to veterinary care. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with companion-animal veterinarians (n = 15), randomly sampled from across Ontario. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted on verbatim transcripts. Most participants worked strictly as a small-animal practitioner at a multi-vet practice, were women, and employed full-time. Four inductive themes relating to the primary study objective were identified: 1. discussing options helps address barriers to veterinary care, 2. veterinarians' descriptions of presenting options differed, 3. veterinarians and veterinary-team members face challenges in presenting options to clients, and 4. a recognized shift is happening away from a singular "Gold Standard" option. All participants discussed the importance of options and shared that discussing options assists in addressing access barriers to veterinary care. Participants differed in their descriptions of what presenting options to clients meant. Descriptions included A) presenting all available options alongside risks, benefits, and other details; B) making a recommendation and discussing other options, if needed; or C) contextualizing options based on history gathered prior to discussion of options with the client. Participant-identified challenges regarding discussion of options included time constraints, client non-cooperation, and veterinarian bias. All participants referenced the term "Gold Standard", with many acknowledging a shift away from this practice toward offering a range of options in support of providing access to veterinary care. Presenting options and working with clients to contextualize care offers a potential opportunity to increase access to veterinary care.
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.