Surveying dog owners' use and understanding of, and communication with veterinarians about, complementary and alternative veterinary medicine

Abstract

Background: Complementary and alternative veterinary medicine (CAVM) seems to be gaining acceptance by pet owners. Client-veterinarian communication about CAVM is important to explore client perceptions and facilitate open exchange of ideas between owners and veterinarians. Methods: This study includes an online, cross-sectional survey of dog owners to evaluate CAVM use and client-veterinarian communication about CAVM. Based on the extended theory of planned behaviour, factors influencing the intention to use CAVM were evaluated. Results: Past CAVM use was reported by 45.3% clients based on 1000 valid surveys. The attitude towards CAVM was generally positive. Perceived knowledge about CAVM positively predicted perceived behavioural control and attitude towards CAVM. Both were the strongest predictors of future CAVM use. Around 45.7% of clients had already talked to their veterinarian about CAVM. This conversation was mainly initiated by the owner (66.3%). Owners expected the veterinarian to have knowledge about CAVM (91.5%) and offer referral (71.5%). Limitations: The limitation is difficulty in classifying and defining CAVM modalities. Conclusions: Owners' perceived behavioural control and attitude towards CAVM predict CAVM use. Failure to engage in a conversation about CAVM hampers clients to partner with veterinarians to discuss the treatment approach and maximise patient outcome. The veterinarian plays an essential role in providing objective accurate information about CAVM.

Flemish equine veterinarians' perceptions on the use of and client communication about complementary and alternative veterinary medicine

“…The majority of participants indicated that CAVM use sometimes happens without disclosure to the veterinarian. Although it should be kept in mind that this was only based on the disclosure estimated by the participating veterinarians, high non‐disclosure rates have already been described in previous studies surveying horse owners 6–8,10 . In a questionnaire study in horse owners conducted by Thirkell and Hyland, the majority of participants (81%) indicated that they would try new therapies disregarding the veterinarian's opinion about CAVM 5 .…”

“…Participants of the current study mainly suggested CAVM modalities to clients as a possible treatment based on a diagnosed problem or disease. However, animal owners generally view CAVM more as a method to improve general well‐being, chronic disease or a last resort in case of failure of traditional veterinary medicine 6,10 …”

“…In case of suspected back pain, 52% of horse owners first reach out to an alternative therapist 3 . Exclusion of the veterinarian from the diagnostic process and treatment may result in missed diagnoses and untreated disease 2,10 . CAVM use may pose a possible risk due to the occurrence of side effects 11,16 or interaction with conventional treatments 12,16 .…”

“…Medical practitioners should take into account the usage of CAM by patients and communicate with them about it because of the possibility of adverse events 16 . To improve disclosure of CAM use and appropriate responses to patients' concerns, communication skills courses have been developed in human health care 10,29,30 . These consisted of workshops to teach practitioners an open and supportive dialogue with patients 30 …”

“…CAVM methods are often applied by non‐veterinarians 9,10 and the use of CAVM in horses is often not disclosed to the veterinarian 2,3,5,7,8 . However, efficacy or safety of CAVM modalities is not always scientifically proven 3,6,11 .…”