Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42450679›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2026

From Persuasion to Partnership: Evaluating the Practicalities, Ethics, and Evidence for Implementing Motivational Interviewing in Veterinary Practice.

M Carolyn Gates, Clare J Phythian, Eileen Britt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

M Carolyn GatesAkoVet Limited, Palmerston North 4410, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-7790-1945
Clare J PhythianAkoVet Limited, Palmerston North 4410, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-3140-4414
Eileen BrittSchool of Psychology, Speech, and Hearing, University of Canterbury, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-9530-9777

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Veterinary medicine fundamentally revolves around working with people to positively influence how they care for their animals. Veterinarians have traditionally used directive advice-giving when providing clients with recommendations, which can inadvertently push clients further away from change despite good intentions by evoking resistance and leaving the underlying motivational and contextual barriers to change unaddressed. Motivational interviewing (MI), a collaborative communication approach originally developed for addiction counselling, has been widely adapted across many fields because of its proven effectiveness in strengthening intrinsic motivation to change. MI was first applied in veterinary medicine approximately a decade ago with a small but growing evidence base. This review introduces the theoretical foundations of MI, how it can be applied within different types of clinical consultations, as well as the challenges of developing and sustaining competency in practice and ethical implications specific to the veterinarian-client-animal relationship, including the proxy motivation problem where clients bear the costs of behaviour change for benefits experienced primarily by their animal. This review then critically appraises the veterinary MI literature, which has largely focused on communication training outcomes with limited research on the downstream effects on client behaviour or animal welfare, highlighting important research gaps to promote an increased uptake of MI in clinical practice.

Indexed as

animal welfarebehaviour changeclient engagementdecision-makingethicsmotivational interviewingveterinary communication

Identifiers

PMID42450679
PMCPMC13359961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.