OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to report the formulation and preliminary testing of a participatory tool in order to encourage discussions and decisions about dogs' quality-of-life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A tool was designed in which owners rated aspects of their dog's quality-of-life. Two randomised controlled trials were conducted: one with a veterinary surgeon who was involved in the tool design, the second with other veterinary surgeons. In each, owners either were given the tool before a veterinary consultation or underwent normal consultations. After each consultation, owners were asked to report what they had discussed and what decisions they had made. RESULTS: The study involved a total of 170 consultations, of which 91 were randomly allocated to the tool group and 79 into the control group. In both trials, using the tool was associated with a significant increase in the frequency of discussions. In the first trial, using the tool was also associated with an increase in the number of decisions made, but this was not found in the second trial with practitioners who were not involved in the trial design. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: These data suggest that the use of a participatory tool has the potential to enhance the effectiveness of consultations, especially if the practitioner is familiar with the tool design.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to report the formulation and preliminary testing of a participatory tool in order to encourage discussions and decisions about dogs' quality-of-life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A tool was designed in which owners rated aspects of their dog's quality-of-life. Two randomised controlled trials were conducted: one with a veterinary surgeon who was involved in the tool design, the second with other veterinary surgeons. In each, owners either were given the tool before a veterinary consultation or underwent normal consultations. After each consultation, owners were asked to report what they had discussed and what decisions they had made. RESULTS: The study involved a total of 170 consultations, of which 91 were randomly allocated to the tool group and 79 into the control group. In both trials, using the tool was associated with a significant increase in the frequency of discussions. In the first trial, using the tool was also associated with an increase in the number of decisions made, but this was not found in the second trial with practitioners who were not involved in the trial design. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: These data suggest that the use of a participatory tool has the potential to enhance the effectiveness of consultations, especially if the practitioner is familiar with the tool design.
Authors: Beatrice Besche; Thomas Blondel; Emilie Guillot; Catherine Garelli-Paar; Mark A Oyama Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 3.333