FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
PloS one2025; 20(5); e0322902; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0322902

Contributing to evidence-based veterinary medicine: A qualitative study of veterinary professionals’ views and experiences of client-owned companion animal research.

Abstract: Research on the outcomes of veterinary treatments in dogs, cats and horses has important benefits for these animals and their owners. However, this information is not always available, and the evidence base is often lower-quality than in human medicine. To identify ways to improve the generation of evidence, we investigated the views of veterinary professionals about research involving companion animal patients and their owners. This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with veterinary surgeons and registered veterinary nurses working in UK companion animal clinical practice. Interviews were conducted with 20 veterinary professionals from different clinical settings including both those with and without previous experience of research involving animals. Analyses revealed that veterinary professionals valued evidence-based information to help them make informed decisions about treatment with owners. However, there was often not enough available evidence. Veterinary professionals were willing to help produce this research evidence. However, lack of time and resources were key challenges and in addition, they did not always feel they had the necessary research skills, experience and support. Some participants also found it difficult to discuss participation in research with owners of their veterinary patients. They also had concerns about the amount and type of extra information they would need to give to owners. Veterinary professionals also faced a dilemma as their key role is to protect the welfare of animals that they treat, yet felt that there was the potential for some animals assigned to receive a specific treatment as part of a research study to be disadvantaged. Companion animal research has important benefits for veterinary patients, their owners and for veterinary professionals. Based on our findings, more funding, improved research training, resources, support networks and changes to current regulations are needed. Improved evidence would assist veterinary professionals and owners when making informed decisions around veterinary care.
Copyright: © 2025 Furtado et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-05-09 PubMed ID: 40343961PubMed Central: PMC12063805DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0322902Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The study seeks to understand the views of veterinary professionals on research involving client-owned companion animals. It was found that while these professionals appreciate evidence-based results to process decisions about treatments, there’s often a lack of available evidence. These professionals are willing to be part of research efforts, but factors such as time, resources, and a lack of necessary research skills pose challenges. Ethical considerations also surface, with the professionals noting concerns about potential harm to animals as part of research studies. The research suggests the need for increased funding, enhanced research education, and changes to existing regulations.

Views on Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine

  • The study was performed with a focus on understanding how the field of veterinary medicine is affected by the lack of evidence-based data. It was found that evidence plays a major part in making effective treatment decisions for companion animals. Thus, the study highlights the critical role of research in veterinary medicine.

The Qualitative Study Methodology

  • This qualitative study relied on semi-structured interviews to collect information from veterinary professionals. The interviews gathered insight from 20 professionals who worked in various clinical foregrounds, including those with and without previous research experience involving animals.

Challenges in Producing Research Evidence

  • While the interviewed veterinary professionals indicated a readiness to contribute to research activities, several obstacles made it difficult for them to do so. The most reported hindrances include a lack of time, limited resources, and absence of necessary research skills and support.

Ethical Considerations and Animal Welfare

  • An ethical predicament was noted by veterinary professionals. They were torn by the need to balance the welfare of the animals under treatment with the mandate to conduct research that would possibly affect these animals’ well-being. Consequently, there were concerns about potential harm to animals involved in research studies.

Recommendations for Improvement

  • The study suggests several remedies to address the identified issues. These include increased funding for veterinary research, better research training for veterinary professionals, augmented resources and support networks, and alterations to current regulations overseeing animal treatment during research. The changes would serve to bolster the status of evidence-based veterinary medicine, thus aiding professionals and owners in making more informed decisions.

Cite This Article

APA
Furtado T, Perkins E, Archer DC. (2025). Contributing to evidence-based veterinary medicine: A qualitative study of veterinary professionals’ views and experiences of client-owned companion animal research. PLoS One, 20(5), e0322902. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322902

Publication

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
NlmUniqueID: 101285081
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 20
Issue: 5
Pages: e0322902
PII: e0322902

Researcher Affiliations

Furtado, Tamzin
  • School of Veterinary Science, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Perkins, Elizabeth
  • Department of Primary Care and Mental Health, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Archer, Debra C
  • School of Veterinary Science, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Humans
  • Veterinarians / psychology
  • Pets
  • Qualitative Research
  • Veterinary Medicine / methods
  • Evidence-Based Medicine
  • Cats
  • Dogs
  • Female
  • Male
  • United Kingdom

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

This article includes 50 references
  1. Bonnett B. Evidence-based medicine: critical evaluation of new and existing therapies.. In Shoen AM, Wynn SG, editors. Complementary and alternative veterinary medicine. St. Louis, MO; Mosby: 1998. pp.15-20.
  2. Fogle B. Evidence-based medicine.. Vet Rec 1998;143(23):643.
    pubmed: 9881448
  3. Malynicz G. Evidence-based medicine.. Vet Rec 1998;143(22):619.
    pubmed: 9871961
  4. Jones WE. Evidence-based equine medicine.. J Equine Veterinary Science 2000;20(7):415.
    doi: 10.1016/s0737-0806(00)70427-8google scholar: lookup
  5. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine.. JAMA 1992;268(17):2420–5.
    doi: 10.1001/jama.1992.03490170092032pubmed: 1404801google scholar: lookup
  6. Sackett DL. Evidence-based medicine.. Semin Perinatol 1997;21(1):3–5.
    doi: 10.1016/s0146-0005(97)80013-4pubmed: 9190027google scholar: lookup
  7. Holmes M, Cockcroft P. Evidence‐based veterinary medicine 1. Why is it important and what skills are needed?. In Practice 2004;26(1):28–33.
    doi: 10.1136/inpract.26.1.28google scholar: lookup
  8. Schmidt PL. Evidence-based veterinary medicine: evolution, revolution, or repackaging of veterinary practice?. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2007;37(3):409–17.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2007.01.001pubmed: 17466746google scholar: lookup
  9. Sellers E, Baillie S, Dean R, Warman S, Janicke H, Arlt SP. Promoting Evidence-based Veterinary Medicine through the online resource ‘EBVM Learning’: User feedback.. 2021;25;6.
  10. BMJ Best Practice [internet] BMJ. 2024. Available from: https://bestpractice.bmj.com
  11. Cochrane.org [internet] Cochrane. 2024. Available from: https://www.cochrane.org/evidence
  12. Park SS, Grayson MH. Clinical research: protection of the “vulnerable”?. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2008;121(5):1103–7.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2008.01.014pubmed: 18313131google scholar: lookup
  13. Toews L. The information infrastructure that supports evidence-based veterinary medicine: a comparison with human medicine.. J Vet Med Educ 2011;38(2):123–34.
    doi: 10.3138/jvme.38.2.123pubmed: 22023920google scholar: lookup
  14. Vandeweerd J-M, Kirschvink N, Clegg P, Vandenput S, Gustin P, Saegerman C. Is evidence-based medicine so evident in veterinary research and practice? History, obstacles and perspectives.. Vet J 2012;191(1):28–34.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.04.013pubmed: 21620746google scholar: lookup
  15. Haddock L, Baillie S, Sellers E, Warman S. Exploring the motivations, challenges, and barriers for implementing evidence-based veterinary medicine (EBVM) in general practice.. Veterinary Evidence 2023 Mar 16; 8(1).
  16. Ashall V, Morton D, Clutton E. A Declaration of Helsinki for animals.. Vet Anaesth Analg 2023;50(4):309–14.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vaa.2023.03.005pubmed: 37183079google scholar: lookup
  17. Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons and Supporting Guidance [internet] Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. 2019. Available from: www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/code-of-professional-conduct-for-veterinary-surgeons/pdf/.
  18. Arasaradnam R, Clarke S, Van’t Hoff W, Chappell L. Making research everybody’s business: a position statement of the Royal College of Physicians and the National Institute of Health and Care Research.. Clin Med (Lond) 2023;23(2):102–5.
    doi: 10.7861/clinmed.2022-0482pmc: PMC11046500pubmed: 36806205google scholar: lookup
  19. Hauser S, Jackson EL. A Survey of the Non-clinical Benefits of EBVM.. Veterinary Evidence 2017;2(3).
    doi: 10.18849/ve.v2i3.102google scholar: lookup
  20. Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory.. 2nd ed. Sage Publications; 2014.
  21. Berger P, Luckman T. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge.. 7th ed. Penguin Books; 1991.
  22. Solomon M. Just a paradigm: evidence-based medicine in epistemological context.. Eur J Philos Sci 2011; 1:451-66.
  23. Competition and Markets Authority.Veterinary services for household pets. 2023. https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/veterinary-services-market-for-pets-review. Accessed 22 August 2024.
  24. Zinn JO. “In-between” and other reasonable ways to deal with risk and uncertainty: A review article.. Health Risk Soc 2016;18(7–8):348–66.
    doi: 10.1080/13698575.2016.1269879pmc: PMC5359734pubmed: 28392747google scholar: lookup
  25. Jasanoff S. Technologies of humility.. Nature 2007;450(7166):33.
    doi: 10.1038/450033apubmed: 17972866google scholar: lookup
  26. Zinn JO. The Sociology of Risk.. In: Korgen K, editor. The Cambridge Handbook of Sociology. Cambridge University Press; 2016. pp. 129-38.
  27. Russell E, Mossop L, Forbes E, Oxtoby C. Uncovering the “messy details” of veterinary communication: An analysis of communication problems in cases of alleged professional negligence.. Vet Rec 2022;190(3):e1068.
    doi: 10.1002/vetr.1068pubmed: 34821386google scholar: lookup
  28. Ashall V, Millar K, Hobson-West P. Informed consent in veterinary medicine: Ethical implications for the profession and the animal “patient”.. Food Ethics 2018;1(3):247–58.
    doi: 10.1007/s41055-017-0016-2pmc: PMC6420111pubmed: 30882023google scholar: lookup
  29. Everitt S. Clinical decision making in veterinary practice.. PhD Thesis, The University of Nottingham. 2011.
  30. Habing GG, Kaneene JB. Stopping rules in veterinary randomized controlled trials.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2011;239(9):1197–9.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.239.9.1197pubmed: 21999791google scholar: lookup
  31. Miller FG. Clinical equipoise and risk-benefit assessment.. Clin Trials 2012;9(5):621–7.
    doi: 10.1177/1740774512450952pubmed: 22777654google scholar: lookup
  32. Gray C. Role of the consent form in UK veterinary practice.. Vet Rec 2020;187(8):318.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.105762pmc: PMC7606496pubmed: 32917836google scholar: lookup
  33. Pun JKH. An integrated review of the role of communication in veterinary clinical practice.. BMC Vet Res 2020;16(1):394.
    doi: 10.1186/s12917-020-02558-2pmc: PMC7569566pubmed: 33076917google scholar: lookup
  34. Fritz MC, Stanley BJ. Feline clinical trials: considerations for improving recruitment.. J Feline Med Surg 2014;16(9):725–6.
    doi: 10.1177/1098612X14545272pmc: PMC11185239pubmed: 25146660google scholar: lookup
  35. Sobolewski J, Bryan JN, Duval D, O’Kell A, Tate DJ, Webb T. Readability of consent forms in veterinary clinical research.. J Vet Intern Med 2019;33(2):350–5.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.15462pmc: PMC6430880pubmed: 30793806google scholar: lookup
  36. Roper L, Lyttle MD, Gamble C, Humphreys A, Messahel S, Lee ED. Seven-step framework to enhance practitioner explanations and parental understandings of research without prior consent in paediatric emergency and critical care trials.. Emerg Med J 2021;38(3):198–204.
    doi: 10.1136/emermed-2020-209488pmc: PMC7907554pubmed: 32862140google scholar: lookup
  37. O’Sullivan L, Sukumar P, Crowley R, McAuliffe E, Doran P. Readability and understandability of clinical research patient information leaflets and consent forms in Ireland and the UK: a retrospective quantitative analysis.. BMJ Open 2020;10(9):e037994.
    doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037994pmc: PMC7473620pubmed: 32883734google scholar: lookup
  38. Anderson A, Hobson-West P. Animal research, ethical boundary-work, and the geographies of veterinary expertise.. Trans Inst Br Geogr 2023;48(3):491–505.
    doi: 10.1111/tran.12594pmc: PMC10946936pubmed: 38505469google scholar: lookup
  39. Taylor P, Meyer RE. Veterinary clinical research or experiments on pets.. Vet Anaesth Analg 2023;50(5):383–5.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vaa.2023.07.006pubmed: 37634935google scholar: lookup
  40. Bara M, Joffe AR. The ethical dimension in published animal research in critical care: the public face of science.. Crit Care 2014;18(1):R15.
    doi: 10.1186/cc13694pmc: PMC4056799pubmed: 24423201google scholar: lookup
  41. Hiestand KM. The autonomy principle in companion veterinary medicine: A critique.. Front Vet Sci 2022;9:953925.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.953925pmc: PMC9561244pubmed: 36246322google scholar: lookup
  42. Edwards N, Webber J, Mill J, Kahwa E, Roelofs S. Building capacity for nurse-led research.. Int Nurs Rev 2009;56(1):88–94.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1466-7657.2008.00683.xpubmed: 19239521google scholar: lookup
  43. Frieden TR. Evidence for Health Decision Making - Beyond Randomized, Controlled Trials.. N Engl J Med 2017;377(5):465–75.
    doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1614394pubmed: 28767357google scholar: lookup
  44. Burton J, Farrell S, Mäntylä Noble P-J, Al Moubayed N. Explainable text-tabular models for predicting mortality risk in companion animals.. Sci Rep 2024;14(1):14217.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-64551-1pmc: PMC11190214pubmed: 38902282google scholar: lookup
  45. Singleton DA, Pinchbeck GL, Radford AD, Arsevska E, Dawson S, Jones PH. Factors Associated with Prescription of Antimicrobial Drugs for Dogs and Cats, United Kingdom, 2014-2016.. Emerg Infect Dis 2020;26(8):1778–91.
    doi: 10.3201/eid2608.191786pmc: PMC7392421pubmed: 32687030google scholar: lookup
  46. Bhatt DL, Mehta C. Adaptive Designs for Clinical Trials.. N Engl J Med 2016;375(1):65–74.
    doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1510061pubmed: 27406349google scholar: lookup
  47. Joshi GP, Alexander JC, Kehlet H. Large pragmatic randomised controlled trials in peri-operative decision making: are they really the gold standard?. Anaesthesia 2018;73(7):799–803.
    doi: 10.1111/anae.14238pubmed: 29577228google scholar: lookup
  48. Sargeant JM, Brennan ML, O’Connor AM. Levels of evidence, quality assessment, and risk of bias: evaluating the internal validity of primary research.. Front Vet Sci 2022;9:960957.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.960957pmc: PMC9315339pubmed: 35903128google scholar: lookup
  49. Dean R, Heneghan C. Do we need an evidence manifesto?. Vet Rec 2019;185(2):58–9.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.l4653pubmed: 31296726google scholar: lookup
  50. Lanyon L. Evidence-based veterinary medicine: a clear and present challenge.. Vet Rec 2014;174(7):173–5.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.f7519pubmed: 24526538google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 100,129 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.