2022/11/24 by Antonia DeGroot, Jason B. Coe, T.F. Duffield +1
Health Professions · Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology · Psychology · #Veterinary Practice and Education Studies #Human-Animal Interaction Studies #Communication in Education and Healthcare
paper · doi:10.1002/vetr.2384
Abstract Background The objectives of this study were to explore the level of shared decision making (SDM) between veterinarians and dairy and beef producers during on‐farm interactions and to identify factors associated with veterinarians’ use of SDM behaviours. Methods A cross‐sectional sample of food‐animal veterinarians and their clients were recruited in Ontario, Canada. Their on‐farm interactions were audio–video recorded. The recordings were analysed using the ‘Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making’ (observer OPTION 5 ) instrument to determine the level of SDM utilised during preference‐sensitive decisions. A logistic regression model was developed to assess factors associated with a preference‐sensitive decision occurring. Meanwhile, a linear regression model was developed to identify factors associated with the level of SDM used. Results Forty‐one veterinarians participated, and 186 unique veterinarian–producer interactions were audio–video recorded and OPTION 5 score was calculated. SDM scores were low and comparable to other studies using the OPTION 5 instrument. The only factor associated with whether a preference‐sensitive decision occurred was the length of the veterinarian and producer's relationship (in years). As the length of their relationship increased, a preference‐sensitive decision was less likely to occur. The use of SDM behaviours was found to decrease as veterinarian burnout score increased. These findings demonstrate that SDM behaviours are being used by food‐animal veterinarians, yet an opportunity exists to further implement more producer‐centred SDM skills into on‐farm interactions. Limitations Small portions of veterinarian–producer conversation occurred outside of audio–video‐recorded interactions and were not included in the analysis. Conclusion The results of this study aid in further understanding on‐farm interactions between veterinarians and producers and can help to further improve veterinary communication curricula.