Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42797881›Full record

ArticleVeterinary sciences2026

Student Perceptions of Fee Policies in Veterinary Medicine: An Ethical and Professional Identity Framework.

Aysun Gültekin, Pınar Ayvazoğlu-Demir

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Aysun GültekinDepartment of Veterinary History and Deontolog, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Adnan Menderes University, 09016 Aydın, Türkiye.
Pınar Ayvazoğlu-DemirDepartment of Livestock Economics and Management, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kırıkkale University, 71450 Kırıkkale, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study was conducted to examine the perceptions and attitudes of final-year veterinary students regarding the Official Minimum Fee Schedule established for veterinarians in Türkiye, within a multidimensional framework. The research was conducted with a total of 216 final-year students enrolled in veterinary faculties in Türkiye. Data were collected using a questionnaire consisting of Likert-type items. The construct validity of the scale was assessed using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), and its reliability was measured using Cronbach's alpha coefficients. The study found that the majority of students considered providing services below the official minimum fee schedule to be ethically inappropriate and reported that professional organizations play an important regulatory and supervisory role in this regard. In terms of demographic variables, no statistically significant differences were found in factor scores based on gender, income level, university, level of education, or internship experience. However, significant differences were identified in the dimensions of regulatory-deontological attitudes and price transparency based on place of residence. In conclusion, attitudes toward the minimum fee schedule in veterinary medicine are shaped not only by legal knowledge but also by ethical values, professional socialization processes, and institutional norms. These findings highlight the importance of addressing fee policies in veterinary education together with their ethical and professional dimensions, as well as strengthening the awareness-raising role of professional organizations.

Indexed as

deontologyeconomic sustainabilityprice competitionprofessional socializationregulatory compliance

Identifiers

PMID42797881
PMCPMC13612086

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.